Ferrara v. Mills

29 Citing cases

  1. Kirkland v. Northside Independent School Dist

    890 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1989)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that "the first amendment does not vest public school teachers with authority to disregard established administrative mechanisms for approval of reading lists"

    To prevail on his constitutional claim, Kirkland must establish a prima facie case (1) that his supplemental reading list is constitutionally protected speech and (2) that such speech proved to be a substantial or motivating factor in the decision not to rehire him. See Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 576, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir. 1986). If Kirkland successfully carries the initial burden, Northside, in order to avoid liability, must then demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it would not have rehired Kirkland even in the absence of the protected speech. See Mt. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. at 576.

  2. Hatcher v. Board of Pub. Educ. and Orphanage

    809 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1987)   Cited 121 times
    Holding that a principal who based a claim on her association with protesting parents was not required to demonstrate her association implicated a matter of public concern

    Under Connick, unless a public employee's conduct involved a matter of "public concern," examining the propriety of the employer's action under the first amendment is inappropriate. Connick, 461 U.S. at 146-47, 103 S.Ct. at 1690; Eiland v. City of Montgomery, 797 F.2d 953, 955 (11th Cir. 1986); Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir. 1986). Although the proper juxtaposition of Pickering, Mt. Healthy and Connick in public employee speech cases has been somewhat unclear, we need not attempt to resolve this question in this case because we hold appellant's claims are based upon freedom of association.

  3. Taylor v. Bartow County, Ga.

    860 F. Supp. 1526 (N.D. Ga. 1994)   Cited 9 times
    Concluding that plaintiff's speech which denigrated the employer to employees and customers was not protected speech

    As a threshold issue, the Court must determine, "whether the employee's speech may be 'fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern.'" Morgan v. Ford, 6 F.3d 750, 754 (11th Cir. 1993), reh'g en banc denied, 15 F.3d 1099 (1994) (citations omitted); Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1512, 1515 (11th Cir. 1986) (citing Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147-48, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1690-91, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983)). In making this determination the Court looks to "the content, form, and context of the given statement, as revealed by the whole record."

  4. Peterson v. Atlanta Hous. Auth.

    998 F.2d 904 (11th Cir. 1993)   Cited 240 times
    Holding consideration of documents outside pleadings without conversion to summary judgment harmless where nothing further would have been submitted

    Finally, because we find that the speech in question here can be "fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern . . ." Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir. 1986), we also REVERSE the district court's summary judgment on the First Amendment issue. I. BACKGROUND

  5. Suber v. Bulloch County Bd. of Educ.

    722 F. Supp. 736 (S.D. Ga. 1989)   Cited 13 times
    Granting summary judgment on intentional infliction of emotional distress claim based on alleged discriminatory non-renewal of teaching contract

    Whether such speech relates to a matter of public concern is determined as a matter of law, based upon the content, form and context of the statement. Connick, 461 U.S. at 147, 148, 103 S.Ct. at 1690, 1691; Kurtz, 855 F.2d at 727; Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1515 (11th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff has the burden of showing that her speech involved matters of public concern.

  6. Cliff v. Bd. of Sch. Com'rs of City of Indian

    42 F.3d 403 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 287 times
    Holding that a public school teacher waived her due process claim by waiving her right to a pre-termination hearing

    As we recently reiterated, however, "the fact that an employee speaks up on a topic that may be deemed one of public import does not automatically render [her] remarks on that subject protected." Smith, 28 F.3d at 646; see also Hartman, 4 F.3d at 471 (whether speech is of public concern does not turn on the general subject matter of the employee's speech); Colburn, 973 F.2d at 586 ("the fact that the issue could be `interesting' to the community does not make it an issue of public concern."); Callaway, 832 F.2d at 417 (although incidences of sexual harassment in a public school would be of concern to the public, employee's complaints not automatically protected); Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1515 (11th Cir. 1986). We must instead delve deeper into the precise content, form, and context of speech that admittedly may be of some interest to the public.

  7. Maples v. Martin

    858 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1988)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that the transfer of tenured professors from one department to another, without loss of rank or pay, does not implicate any property interest protected by the Due Process Clause

    Third, when both these showings have been made, the Court will apply the balancing test set out in Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), to determine "whether the adverse employment decision was justified." Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir. 1986). In Pickering, the Supreme Court stated that the state's interest as an employer requires that the courts "arrive at a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

  8. Sager v. City of Port Richey

    Case No. 8:10-cv-1069-T-30TGW (M.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2010)

    Whether a plaintiff's speech relates to matters of public concern is a legal question. Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1986). And courts grant deference to government restrictions on employee speech in order to balance the government employer's legitimate interest with that of the employee.

  9. Johnson v. Waters

    970 F. Supp. 991 (M.D. Ala. 1997)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that use of derogatory term, standing alone, is not necessarily direct showing of discrimination, but rather must be considered in context of its use

    Therefore, plaintiff satisfies her initial burden of proof by showing that the speech at issue is constitutionally protected. See Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1512-1514 (11th Cir. 1986). The first issue that must be addressed to determine if the employee's speech is constitutionally protected is whether the speech involves a matter of public concern.

  10. Saville v. Houston Cty. Healthcare Auth.

    852 F. Supp. 1512 (M.D. Ala. 1994)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine does not apply in a ยง 1985 action

    The United States Constitution does not guarantee public employees absolute freedom of speech; rather, an employee's speech rights must be balanced against the interests of the public employer in regulating the speech of its employees. Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1512-13 (11th Cir. 1986). In order to determine whether an allegedly retaliatory employment decision violates an employee's free speech rights, the Eleventh Circuit applies a four-part test.