Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

The city disbanded its dive team because of budget cuts, after which two children drowned. Plaintiff, a fire department employee and member of the disbanded dive team, spoke at a city council meeting, indicating that the budget cuts caused the deaths and would cause more deaths. Plaintiff was ordered to serve unpaid suspension, equivalent to three 24 hour shifts, on grounds of insubordination, malfeasance, misfeasance, dishonesty, failure of good behavior, and conduct unbecoming of an officer. After a grievance hearing the mayor affirmed the suspension, finding that plaintiff’s statements had been false. The district court granted summary judgment for the city. The Sixth Circuit remanded for determination of whether the statements were false; whether any false statements were knowingly or recklessly made; whether a reasonable official would have believed any false statements were knowingly or recklessly made; and, if necessary, whether plaintiff’s interest in speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern outweighed the city’s interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. View "Westmoreland v. Sutherland" on Justia Law

During a radio call-in show, plaintiff, a deputy sheriff, called in response to critical comments regarding defendant's (county sheriff) involvement with an African-American community organization dedicated to reducing crime and indicating that defendant was not a good fit for his position. Defendant called in and retorted by describing plaintiff as a "slacker" and mentioning a disciplinary action taken in 2004 against plaintiff for "sexual harassment." In actuality, the disciplinary action was for violation of a department rule that prohibited offensive conduct or language. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for disclosure of plaintiff's disciplinary history, a claim under Wisconsin's Open Records Law, and a claim under Wisconsin's Right of Privacy statute. The Seventh Circuit reversed. There was no Records Act violation; there was no request to inspect a disciplinary record, no permission granted, and no balancing test undertaken. The information at issue is a matter of public record, so there was no Privacy Act violation. Rejecting a First Amendment retaliation claim, the court noted that there was no threat, coercion, or intimidation. View "Hutchins v. Clarke" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs provide in-home care through Medicaid-waiver programs run by the Illinois Department of Human Services; some work through a Rehabilitation Program and others through a Disabilities Program. In 2003, the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act was amended to designate personal care attendants and personal assistants working under the Home Services Program as state employees for purposes of collective bargaining. 20 ILCS 2405/3. Rehabilitation Program assistants designated a union, which negotiated an agreement that includes a "fair share" provision, requiring assistants who are not members to pay their proportionate share of costs of collective bargaining. Disabilities Program assistants voted against unionization. Rehabilitation Program plaintiffs claim that fair share fees violate the First Amendment by compelling association with, and speech through, the union. Disabilities Program plaintiffs argue that they are harmed by the threat of fair share fees. The district court dismissed both. The Seventh Circuit affirmed and remanded for dismissal of the Disabilities plaintiffs' case without prejudice because it was unripe. Because of the significant control the state exercises over all aspects of personal assistants' jobs, the assistants are employees of the state. The state's interests in collective bargaining are such that fair share fees withstand First Amendment scrutiny in a facial challenge to the imposition of the fees. View "Harris v. Quinn" on Justia Law

A regional television personality was discharged from his employment with Comcast Network after he publicly protested the selection of political commentator Bill O'Reilly for a prestigious broadcasting award. He filed a claim of speech-motivated retaliation under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, 11H, 11I. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Comcast. The First Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff's employment agreement permitted Comcast to terminate him for any reason, or no reason at all; termination, or threatened termination, of an employee under such a contract is not coercive in the relevant sense under the MCRA. View "Nolan v. CN8" on Justia Law

The company fired a worker, claiming poor performance and misconduct; the union claimed that the termination was based on union support and filed an NLRB charge. The union also began a campaign against the company that included auto-generated calls and e-mail that clogged the company's systems. The company filed suit under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030. The court denied the company's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to enter an injunction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act (29 U.S.C. 101, 104) because the suit involves a labor dispute and the union's attempts to publicize that dispute. The court later dismissed the suit. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to the preliminary injunction, noting that the company had not made "reasonable efforts" to settle the dispute, but remanded the dismissal. The company adequately alleged that the union knowingly caused "transmission" of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally caused damage without authorization, to a protected computer. The union did not adequately allege an "unauthorized access" claim. View "Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers' Int'l Union" on Justia Law