Podobne
- Strona startowa
- Carey Jacqueline [ Dziedzictwo Kusziela 02] Wybranka Kusziela
- James L. Larson Reforming the North; The Kingdoms and Churches of Scandinavia, 1520 1545 (2010)
- Psychosis and Spirituality Consolidating the New Paradigm ed by Isabel Clarke 2nd Edn (2010)
- Amis Martin Strzala Czasu (SCAN dal 749) (2
- Morrell Dav
- Duenas Maria Krawcowa z Madrytu
- Wharton William Wiesci
- Gordon R. Dickson Smoczy rycerz t.2
- Blake, William Complete Poetry And Prose(1)
- Bialolecka Ewa Kamien na szczycie
- zanotowane.pl
- doc.pisz.pl
- pdf.pisz.pl
- alu85.keep.pl
Cytat
Do celu tam się wysiada. Lec Stanisław Jerzy (pierw. de Tusch-Letz, 1909-1966)
A bogowie grają w kości i nie pytają wcale czy chcesz przyłączyć się do gry (. . . ) Bogowie kpią sobie z twojego poukładanego życia (. . . ) nie przejmują się zbytnio ani naszymi planami na przyszłość ani oczekiwaniami. Gdzieś we wszechświecie rzucają kości i przypadkiem wypada twoja kolej. I odtąd zwyciężyć lub przegrać - to tylko kwestia szczęścia. Borys Pasternak
Idąc po kurzych jajach nie podskakuj. Przysłowie szkockie
I Herkules nie poradzi przeciwko wielu.
Dialog półinteligentów równa się monologowi ćwierćinteligenta. Stanisław Jerzy Lec (pierw. de Tusch - Letz, 1909-1966)
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
. ers, need a significant degree of control over With these principles in mind we turn to thetheir employees words and actions; without instant case.Respondent Ceballos believedit, there would be little chance for the efficient the affidavit used to obtain a search warrantprovision of public services.Public employ- contained serious misrepresentations.Heees, moreover, often occupy trusted positions conveyed his opinion and recommendationin society.When they speak out, they can in a memo to his supervisor.That Ceballosexpress views that contravene governmental expressed his views inside his office, ratherpolicies or impair the proper performance of than publicly, is not dispositive.Employeesgovernmental functions.in some cases may receive First AmendmentAt the same time, the Court has recognized protection for expressions made at work.that a citizen who works for the government is Many citizens do much of their talking insidenonetheless a citizen.The First Amendment their respective workplaces, and it would notlimits the ability of a public employer to lever- serve the goal of treating public employeesage the employment relationship to restrict, like any member of the general public, toincidentally or intentionally, the liberties hold that all speech within the office is auto-employees enjoy in their capacities as private matically exposed to restriction.citizens.So long as employees are speaking The memo concerned the subject matteras citizens about matters of public concern, of Ceballos employment, but this, too, isthey must face only those speech restric- nondispositive.The First Amendment pro-tions that are necessary for their employers to tects some expressions related to the speak-operate efficiently and effectively.er s job.As the Court noted in Pickering:The Court s employee-speech jurispru- Teachers are, as a class, the members of adence protects, of course, the constitutional community most likely to have informed andrights of public employees.Yet the First definite opinions as to how funds allotted to PART II: CASES RELATING TO CHAPTER 10 715GARCETTI V.CEBALLOSthe operation of the schools should be spent.protection, however, does not invest themAccordingly, it is essential that they be able with a right to perform their jobs howeverto speak out freely on such questions with- they see fit.out fear of retaliatory dismissal. The same Our holding likewise is supported by theis true of many other categories of public emphasis of our precedents on affordingcientemployees.government employers suffi discre-The controlling factor in Ceballos case tion to manage their operations.Employersis that his expressions were made pursu- have heightened interests in controllingant to his duties as a calendar deputy.That speech made by an employee in his or herconsideration the fact that Ceballos spoke professional capacity.Official communica-as a prosecutor fulfilling a responsibility tions have official consequences, creating ato advise his supervisor about how best to need for substantive consistency and clarity.proceed with a pending case distinguishes Supervisors must ensure that their employ-Ceballos case from those in which the First ees official communications are accurate,Amendment provides protection against dis- demonstrate sound judgment, and promotecipline.We hold that when public employees the employer s mission.Ceballos memo ismake statements pursuant to their official illustrative.It demanded the attention of hisduties, the employees are not speaking as supervisors and led to a heated meeting withcitizens for First Amendment purposes, and employees from the sheriff s department.Ifthe Constitution does not insulate their com- Ceballos superiors thought his memo wasmunications from employer discipline.inflammatory or misguided, they had theCeballos wrote his disposition memo authority to take proper corrective action.because that is part of what he, as a calendar Ceballos proposed contrary rule, adopteddeputy, was employed to do.Restricting by the Court of Appeals, would commit statespeech that owes its existence to a public and federal courts to a new, permanent, andemployee s professional responsibilities does intrusive role, mandating judicial oversightnot infringe any liberties the employee might of communications between and amonghave enjoyed as a private citizen.It simply government employees and their superi-reflects the exercise of employer control over ors in the course of official business.Thiswhat the employer itself has commissioned displacement of managerial discretion byor created.judicial supervision finds no support in ourCeballos did not act as a citizen when he precedents.When an employee speaks as awent about conducting his daily professional citizen addressing a matter of public concern,activities, such as supervising attorneys, the First Amendment requires a delicate bal-investigating charges, and preparing filings.ancing of the competing interests surround-In the same way he did not speak as a citizen ing the speech and its consequences.When,by writing a memo that addressed the proper however, the employee is simply performingdisposition of a pending criminal case.When his or her job duties, there is no warrant forhe went to work and performed the tasks he a similar degree of scrutiny.To hold other-was paid to perform, Ceballos acted as a gov- wise would be to demand permanent judicialernment employee.The fact that his duties intervention in the conduct of governmen-sometimes required him to speak or write tal operations to a degree inconsistent withdoes not mean his supervisors were prohib- sound principles of federalism and the sepa-ited from evaluating his performance.ration of powers.This result is consistent with our prec-edents attention to the potential societal * * *value of employee speech.Refusing to rec-ognize First Amendment claims based on Proper application of our precedentsgovernment employees work product does thus leads to the conclusion that the Firstnot prevent them from participating in public Amendment does not prohibit managerialdebate.The employees retain the prospect of discipline based on an employee s expres-constitutional protection for their contribu- sions made pursuant to official responsibili-tions to the civic discourse.This prospect of ties.Because Ceballos memo falls into this 716 CONSTITUTIONAL LAWcategory, his allegation of unconstitutionalVOSEretaliation must fail.v.Two final points warrant mentioning.First,KLIMENTas indicated above, the parties in this casedo not dispute that Ceballos wrote his dis-506 F.3d 565 (7th Cir.2007)position memo pursuant to his employmentduties.We thus have no occasion to articu-[Citations and footnotes omitted]late a comprehensive framework for definingthe scope of an employee s duties in casesBAUER, Circuit Judge.where there is room for serious debate.Wereject, however, the suggestion that employ-In 2004, Vose was a police sergeant iners can restrict employees rights by creat-the narcotics unit of the City of Springfielding excessively broad job descriptions.ThePolice Department and had been with theproper inquiry is a practical one.Formal jobDepartment for more than 26 years, includ-descriptions often bear little resemblance toing over 13 years in the narcotics unit
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]