Renken v. Gregory - 541 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2008)

Rule:

In order for a public employee to raise a successful First Amendment claim, he must have spoken in his capacity as a private citizen and not as an employee. When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. Determining what falls within the scope of an employee's duties is a practical exercise that focuses on the duties an employee actually is expected to perform. Formal job descriptions often bear little resemblance to the duties an employee actually is expected to perform, and the listing of a given task in an employee's written job description is neither necessary nor sufficient to demonstrate that conducting the task is within the scope of the employee's professional duties for First Amendment purposes. Only if plaintiff was speaking as a citizen and not as an employee, will the court inquire into the content of the speech to ascertain whether his speech touched on a matter of public concern to determine whether it is protected speech.

Facts:

The plaintiff professor filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendant university had reduced his pay and terminated the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights when he criticized and complained about the university's proposed use of the grant funds. The district court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that plaintiff’s complaints about the grant funding were made as part of his official duties, rather than as citizen, and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment. Alternatively, the district court concluded that if the plaintiff spoke as a citizen and not part of his official duties, his speech was still not protected because it related to a matter of private interest, namely plaintiff’s teaching and research, and not a matter of public concern. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Were the plaintiff’s complaints about the grant funding protected by the First Amendment? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the plaintiff was speaking as a faculty employee, and not as a private citizen, because administering the grant as a principal investigator (PI) fell within the teaching and service duties that he was employed to perform. The court further found that by the plaintiff’s own admission, his employment status as a full professor depended on the administration of grants, such as the NSF grant. It was in the course of that administration, that the plaintiff made his statements about funding improprieties within the confines of the university system and as the principal PI.