Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)

Citation: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Parent Document: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131855/michel-v-hartford/ ↗

Full Text

2,292 chars

in commenting upon matters of public concern and the
       interest of the [s]tate, as an employer, in promoting the
       efficiency of the public services it performs . . . .
          ‘‘In Connick v. Myers, [461 U.S. 138, 150, 103 S. Ct.
       1684, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708 (1983)] the court added a modifi-
       cation to the general balancing test promulgated in
       Pickering. Under Connick, if a government employee’s
       speech cannot be fairly characterized as constituting
       speech on a matter of public concern, it is unnecessary
       . . . to scrutinize the reasons for [his or] her discharge.
       . . . The court reasoned that if an employee’s speech
       addresses matters of exclusively private concern, the
       government interest in latitude [to manage] their
       offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary . . .
       would outweigh the first amendment interests in the
       speech, absent the most unusual circumstances . . . .’’
       (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
       Schumann v. Dianon Systems, Inc., supra, 304 Conn.
       601–602.
          Subsequently, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410,
       126 S. Ct. 1951, 164 L. Ed. 2d 689 (2006), the court
       emphasized that ‘‘[u]nderlying [its] cases has been the
       premise that while the [f]irst [a]mendment invests pub-
       lic employees with certain rights, it does not empower
       them to ‘constitutionalize the employee grievance.’ ’’
       Id., 420. Thus, the court concluded that, ‘‘when public
       employees make statements pursuant to their official
       duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for
       [f]irst [a]mendment purposes, and the [c]onstitution
       does not insulate their communications from employer
       discipline.’’ Id., 421. Our Supreme Court has explained
       that ‘‘Garcetti adds a threshold layer of analysis, requir-
       ing courts to first determine whether an employee is
       speaking pursuant to his official duties before turning
       to the remainder of the first amendment analysis set
       forth in Pickering and Connick.’’ Schumann v. Dianon
       Systems, Inc., supra, 304 Conn. 604.
Page 16                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text