Section 3617

Citation: Section 3617
Parent Document: Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority, 161 F.3d 1290 (1998)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1998-12-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/73387/gonzalez-v-lee-county-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

2,171 chars

25
  See App. A, ¶¶ 7-8 (stating that Gonzalez becomes aggravated at work
and cannot predict whether Moran will want to rent to certain tenants);
id., ¶ 8 (stating that Moran complains to Gonzalez when Gonzalez rents
in a non-discriminatory manner); id., ¶ 9 (stating that Moran and
Gonzalez argue when Moran forces Gonzalez to break the rules).
      This portion of the letter thus differs from the element of the
employee’s speech in Connick that satisfied the public concern
requirement. See 461 U.S. at 149, 103 S. Ct. at 1691. Even though Myers
circulated the questionnaire as a result of her employment grievance, the
actual question about whether assistant district attorneys were forced
to work on political campaigns did not refer explicitly to Myers’s self-
interest.
26
  See, e.g., id., ¶ 6 (“[Y]ou do not follow Rules and Regulations . . .,
which causes so much confusion not only to me, also to every person in
this office.”); id., ¶ 10 (“You can not keep blaming me for this place
starting to fall apart. You owe all this to yourself, because you are
the one that bend the rules all the time.”); id., ¶ 19 (stating that
Moran creates a “miserable environment” in the office).
27
  In Pearson, a hospital nurse alleged that her employer violated § 1983
by discharging her for comments she made about her supervisors’
assignment of cleaning responsibilities and about operating room
cleanliness. See id. at 1276-77. In holding that her comments did not
satisfy the public concern requirement, we explained:
     Pearson’s complaints primarily pertained to the assignment of
     cleaning responsibilities in the O.R. and the allocation of
     blame among the nurses responsible for O.R. conditions on
     those occasions when cleaning duties were neglected. It was
     only incident to speaking on these concerns that appellant’s
     remarks touched on conditions that might be potentially
     hazardous to patients. Appellant’s complaints, furthermore,
     were in large measure conveyed in light of a reprimand, still
     fresh,   which   appellant   believed   unfairly   attributed
     responsibility to her for poor O.R. conditions. In essence,

Other Sections in This Document (884)

Full Text