Rocklin City Health Department and P.C. Cooper did not violate the First Amendment in terminating...
1. Was Redding's Speech a Matter of Public Concern?
1.1. 14th analysis: There is a circuit split on what is considered a matter of public concern. Obviously, topics like race and sexual harassment are extremely important for public discussion, but what constitutes a public concern has R. 7 never been comprehensively defined. Whether to vaccinate children against the flu is a personal choice, not a public one. This Court is not convinced that this topic reaches the level of public concern. We recognize, however, there are strong emotions and several professional articles surrounding this topic and will therefore analyze the next part of the test as if the debate over flu vaccinations for children is a matter of public concern. We will make our final determination on Redding’s First Amendment claim after balancing the interests of the parties under the next part of the test.
1.1.1. Was the content really a public concern if it was an opinion about her experience with a flu shot????
1.2. Connick established this: Content, Form, and Context
1.2.1. Very Broad, disruptions of employer will allow it to usually be trumped
1.2.1.1. There was disruptions in the Redding case, because a physician emailed her supervisor because a patient had mentioned it to her; if this behavior were to continue this could be detrimental to the efficiency of the Health Department
1.2.2. Content: “content” is the preeminent factor. In dealing with this issue, the court noted, it must consider whether the speech related to “any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.”
1.2.2.1. Davignon: The sheriff was not entitled to the potential disruptiveness instruction. Speech for the Union was determined to be protected.
1.2.2.2. Only one question in Connick's questionnaire was of public concern, thus the context had a weak case. Everything else had to do with the status quo of the office, which is not public concern.
1.2.2.3. The way it was originally posted made it look like less of a public concern, but the context of it being reposting and gaining more attention makes it appear like more of a public concern
1.2.3. Arnett v. kennedy: "To this end, the government as an employer, must have wide discretion and control over the management of its personal and internal affairs. This includes the prerogative to remove employees whose conduct hinders efficient operation and to do o with dispatch. Prolonged retention of a disruptive or otherwise unsatisfactory employee can adversely affect discipline and morale in the work place, foster disharmony, and ultimately impair the efficiency of an office or agency"
1.2.3.1. "The limited First Amendment interest involved here does not require that Connick tolerate action which he reasonable believed would disrupt the office, undermine his authority, and destroy close working relationships"
2. Does Redding's Speech Pass the Balancing Test?
2.1. From Pickering
2.1.1. “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.” -- Pickering
2.1.1.1. Duke v. Hamil: It went downhill for the plaintiff, however, when the Court began to apply the Pickering-Connick balancing test to determine *461 if plaintiff's interest in speaking on such a matter of public concern outweighed the police department's interest in running an efficient public service.187 The Court did not accept plaintiff's argument that he had not caused any disruption to the police department in making the post at issue.
2.1.1.1.1. Suggests that this can be a deal breaker for a case that otherwise would be protected.
2.1.1.2. A public employee does not give up their rights upon acceptance of a governmental position
2.1.2. Facts differ from Redding: 1) "fact of employment is only tangentially and insubstantially involved in the subject matter of the public communication made by a teacher, thus it is necessary to regard the teacher as a member of the general public he seeks to be" 2) Not a close working relationship with the subject in question 3) no actual operational effect of the publication with the school 4) he was an individual in a prime place to comment about the subject because he sees the results best
2.2. The viral nature of the post makes it reach far more people and have an even further impact to dissuade members of the public from taking advantage of the Health Department's flu vaccines
2.2.1. Between November 4 and November 18, the Health Department received at least ten phone calls from concerned parents who had seen the Mother’s Milk Facebook post regarding flu vaccinations.
2.2.1.1. Dr. Janet Cochran sent an email to P.C. Cooper on November 17, 2019, regarding the hesitancy of one of her patients in getting a flu shot for her daughter. The patient referenced to the Mother’s Milk post
2.2.1.1.1. Refused to take it down when asked to
2.3. 14th analysis: Director Cooper claims that Redding’s posts caused significant disruption to the goals of the Rocklin City Health Department. Many expectant parents in Rocklin City depend on the Rocklin Health Department for free or reduced-cost services and advice. Those parents must be able to trust the advice they receive from the city. In addition, the Department receives a federal grant that helps support its vaccination program. The Mother’s Milk Facebook page is public and would be accessible to those parents who looked for it or just happened to see it. Redding was aware that her friend Amy Shell would read her post and could have expected Shell would re-post it on the Mother’s Milk Facebook page. While Redding is entitled to her opinions, the interest of the Rocklin City Health Department in providing services to Rocklin City citizens outweighs Redding’s right to post contrary opinions on social media.
3. Policy Arguments
3.1. The viral nature of the post makes it reach far more people and have an even further impact to dissuade members of the public from taking advantage of the Health Department's flu vaccines
3.2. Discouraging members of the public to forgo a flu shot that is detrimental to their health possibly is against public policy because it achieves a result that is not in the publics best interest
3.3. She can have her opinions and speak on them, but she can't do it in the position she is in
3.3.1. "A policeman may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman"
3.4. Curbs the doctors ability to administer these shots and serve other patients in need because they's curbing concerns about a flu shot because of online chatter creating misplaced concern
3.5. Redding's naturalist medical views undermine the attempt to provide and service the public who are in need and cannot afford to pay for healthcare. She needs to either help serve her community or find another place of employment.
3.6. She has more influence over the public with her position at the health department and she shouldn't be able to use this influence to convince people to go against the advice of doctors to conform to her own ill-researched opinions
4. Was Redding acting as a Private Citizen?
4.1. Garcetti Precedent: when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline, and "here, district attorney did not speak as a citizen when he wrote his memo and, thus, his speech was not protected by the First Amendment."
4.1.1. Lane v. Franks did not follow this: director's sworn testimony at former program employee's corruption trials was citizen speech eligible for First Amendment protection, not unprotected employee speech; director's testimony was speech on matter of public concern;
4.1.1.1. Some circuit courts have maneuvered there way around to declining to extend this ruling. Not the most effective possibly.
4.1.2. Cannot limit their enjoyment of their personal rights as private citizens. So long as they are speaking as citizens about matter of public concern, they must face only those speech restriction that are necessary for the employers to operate efficiently and effectively.
4.1.2.1. Talking inside of the workplace does not automatically make it work-related; has more to do with your official job duties and what you are required to do for your job
4.1.2.1.1. They can join public discussions of public matters how ever they want, but they can't perform their jobs as they see fit.
4.2. General definition: A public employee must prove that the speech in question was not made “because that [was] part of what he ... was employed to do” but rather, because he or she was speaking as an ordinary citizen.
4.3. 14th analysis: If a government employee’s speech is connected to her job duties, the government employer may discipline or dismiss an employee for her speech. Redding’s job duties did not require her to post on social media. Redding identified herself as an employee of the City Health Department in her post, but she did not indicate that she was speaking on behalf of the City Health Department. Redding is also correct that it was Shell’s reposting of her post that garnered the most attention. While we agree that Redding spoke as a private citizen, this conclusion alone does not provide constitutional protection. She must also meet the other parts of the test.
4.3.1. There are some weaknesses to her not being a private citizen; other cases have held that things not necessarily in their job duties are being treated as such because they took it upon themselves to do it in a official capacity
4.3.2. The reposting was on a page that Redding co-owns so also it was done by shell it is involvement in her own organization for her own opinions and purposes that is clearly against the purpose and service mission behind her employer