Motive is not dispositive in determining whether an employee has spoken out on a matter of public concern, the 2nd Circuit has ruled in clarifying its "less than clear" precedents with regard to First Amendment retaliation claims. The court reinstated the retaliation lawsuit of a Connecticut state employee who claimed he was fired for complaining about incidents of violence in the workplace. A lower court had ruled that Bryan Sousa had been merely speaking about employment grievances, not matters of public concern.
August 25, 2009 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Motive is not dispositive in determining whether an employee has spoken out on a matter of public concern, a federal appeals court has ruled in clarifying its “less than clear” precedents with regard to First Amendment retaliation claims.
In Sousa v. Roque, 07-1892-cv, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the retaliation lawsuit of a Connecticut state employee.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers & financiers at THE MULTIFAMILY EVENT OF THE YEAR!
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
Join the Mendocino County District Attorney s Office and work in Mendocino County home to redwoods, vineyards and picturesque coastline. ...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
