The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an important decision in a case involving whistleblowing and retaliation. The case is titled Lane v. Franks, and involves a public employee who was fired from his job after testifying about corruption. The facts of the case are as follows:
Back in 2006, Edward Lane of Alabama worked as the director of Central Alabama Community College’s Community Intensive Training for Youth (CITY) program. The program is a statewide one aimed at helping at-risk youth. While employed in this position, Lane conducted an audit which uncovered that a state representative was on the program’s payroll, despite not conducting any work for the program. Lane fired the representative, Susan Schmitz. Shortly afterwards, Schmitz was indicted federally on charges of mail fraud and theft.
Lane testified, under subpoena, in an ensuing FBI case against the state representative. Meanwhile, the at-risk youth program run by Central Alabama Community College experienced budget shortfalls. Lane and 29 other employees were fired in a claimed effort to manage financial difficulties. Days later, however, Central Alabama Community College President Steve Franks rescinded all but two of the 29 terminations—those of Lane and one other employee.
The firing led Lane to file a suit against Franks, claiming that Franks violated Lane’s First Amendment protections. Lane sought reinstatement and damages. The two lower courts sided with Franks and the college, finding that Lane acted in an official capacity in firing Schmitz, and therefore could not claim the protections of the First Amendment. Lane continued to fight, taking the matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court and sided unanimously with Lane. It clarified previous rulings in which the court held that public employees have free speech rights when acting as citizens, but not when testifying as to information they learned in their jobs or are required to speak due to their specific duties. The Supreme Court found that Lane testified as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Lane’s sworn testimony was cited as a quintessential example of citizen speech as Lane was under an obligation to tell the truth.
The Court’s opinion will add a new layer of complexity as to how whistleblowers are treated in the U.S. The opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, stresses that citizens do not surrender their First Amendment rights by accepting public employment. Rather, the rights of public employee’s to free speech must be balanced against the employer’s interests in promoting efficiency of the public services it performs.
The case of Lane v. Franks will have positive ramifications on public employees who act in a whistleblowing capacity for some time to come. Traditionally, public employees have received the least whistleblower protections. In recent years, however, the Court has continued to strengthen the free speech and other rights of public employees, who so often provide vital information concerning wrongdoing occurring in public agencies across the nation.
Barrett Law PLLC: Experienced Representation for Mississippi Whistleblowers
For over 75 years, across three generations, the Mississippi Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law, PLLC have provided skilled, zealous, and intelligent representation for courageous Mississippi whistleblowers. We believe that whistleblowers serve a vital function in our society, exposing waste of government resources and fraudulent conduct. As such, we will strive zealously to assist you in exposing such harmful conduct. Barrett Law, PLLC operates on a contingency fee basis and the first consultation is always free. The skilled attorneys at Barrett Law, PLLC pride themselves on ensuring each and every client receives superior representation, with passion and zeal. Call today at 1 (800) 707-9577 to schedule your free consultation.