Legal Memorandum: Termination of a Public Employee

Issue: IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, WHETHER A PLAINTIFF’S SPEECH MAY BE A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR TERMINATION FROM A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYERtc l2 "IV. PLAINTIFF LACY=S TERMINATION VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

If a plaintiff’s speech was a substantial or motivating factor in his termination, that would form the basis of a constitutional violation.  See TA s "Board of County Commr’s v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 675" c 1 l "Board of County Commr=s v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996)"Board of County Commr’s v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 675-76 (1996).  There may be evidence that indicates the same decision to terminate a plaintiff would have been made even in the absence of his protected speech.   SeeTA s "Board of County Commr’s v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 675" c 1 id. at 675-76.

Motion for Summary Judgment, correctly state the legal principles to be applied in determining whether the discharge of a public employee violates the First Amendment. The first step of the test requires a determination of whether the subject matter of the speech is one that could be fairly characterized as a matter of public concern.  TA s "Matulin v. Village of Lodi, 862 F.2d 609, 612 (6th" c 1 l "Matulin v. Village of Lodi, 862 F.2d 609 (6^th Cir. 1988)"Matulin v. Village of Lodi, 862 F.2d 609, 612 (6^th Cir. 1988).  This issue must be determined by examining the “content, form, and context” of the statement.  Id. at 612 (citing TA s "Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147-48 (1983)" c 1 l "Connick v. Myers,