Search for: ""Garcetti v. Ceballos" OR "547 U.S. 410""
Results 21 - 40
of 69
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jun 2014, 8:26 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and 3. the damage caused by the speech to the efficiency of the government agency’s operation does not outweigh the value of the speech to the employee and the public (the so-called Pickering balance). [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 11:14 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). [read post]
31 Aug 2013, 8:00 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 424 (2006), courts must make a “practical” inquiry when determining the scope of a government employee’s professional duties, and Huppert v. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 7:35 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), which holds that the First Amendment does not protect speech made pursuant to the employee's job duties.The case is Kiehle v. [read post]
18 Sep 2012, 7:58 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and its progeny, which makes it harder to win these cases even if the plaintiff exposes a matter of public concern. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 2:11 pm
” In Garcetti v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 11:38 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), the First Amendment protects a public employee only when speaking “as a citizen” not as part of his job duties, and uncovering illegal activity is inherently part of the job of every California officer. [read post]
4 Aug 2012, 5:22 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), which rejected “the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 5:45 am
Citing Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, the Circuit Court explained that "[W]hen 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. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 8:09 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006). [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 8:47 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)). [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 7:54 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), public employees may be retaliated against unless their speech relates to a matter of public concern and is not pursuant to their official job duties. [read post]
17 May 2012, 2:17 am
The latter was the issue in the Thomas case: Was Thomas’s report to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) made pursuant to his professional duties and therefore outside the scope of First Amendment protections within the meaning of Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, or was his speech a matter of public interest and thus protected by the First Amendment? [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 9:03 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006): "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. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 8:22 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), Jackler v. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 6:37 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), which holds that whistleblowing is not protected under the First Amendment if the speech is made pursuant to the plaintiff's official duties. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 9:01 pm
In Garcetti v. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 6:57 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 419 (2006). [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 3:35 pm
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and3. the damage caused by the speech to the efficiency of the government agency’s operation does not outweigh the value of the speech to the employee and the public (the so-called Pickering balance). [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 3:37 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) and Weintraub v. [read post]
