The First Amendment provides protection against retaliation for public employees who speak on matters of public concern. A matter is one of public concern if it relates to “broad social or policy issues” or “the way in which a government office serves the public.” To establish a First Amendment claim against a public employer, an employee must establish that:

1. he was speaking as a citizen rather than as a public employee discharging his employment duties;

2. his statements address a matter of public concern, as opposed to a personal interest; and

3. the public employer did not have adequate justification for treating the employee differently than from any other member of the general public.

Once an employee establishes that his speech was made outside of his job duties and on a matter of public concern, his or her speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Our Federal Courts have further acknowledged the Constitutional protections attendant to an individual’s right to petition the government for the redress of grievances and the right of access to the Court. The United States Supreme Court has required restraint on the part of federal courts in enjoining lawsuits and has held that the filing of a lawsuit carries significant constitutional protections implicating the First Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances and the right of access to our courts. The Supreme Court has further determined that an employee’s rights under the First Amendment Petition Clause be granted the same protection and be analyzed under the same standard as free speech cases.

In addition to protecting an individual’s right to freedom of speech, to file a lawsuit and/or to testify at depositions, hearings, arbitrations and trials, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to freedom of political affiliation. In order to successfully prosecute a First Amendment political affiliation claim, an individual must establish that:

1. he/she engaged in political activity and/or exercised the right of political affiliation;

2. the employee suffered an adverse or unwelcome employment action; and

3. the individual’s political affiliation or political activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action.

The attorneys at Charles Law Offices have successfully prosecuted claims wherein:

• Assistant Public Defenders were wrongfully terminated due solely to their political affiliation;

• police officers were denied a promotion because they refused to support a candidate for mayor;

• police officers were denied a promotion because they spoke out and voted against their union endorsing a specific candidate for mayor or city council;

• a police officer was denied a promotion because he served on the Board of Directors of an organization that had backed an unsuccessful candidate for mayor

• a police officer was demoted and forced to resign because he actively campaigned for an unsuccessful candidate for mayor; and

• a police officer was terminated, in part, because of his vocal opposition to the candidacies of an elected mayor and elected council members.

In each of the above instances, the attorneys at Charles Law Offices were able to successfully secure promotions or monetary awards/settlements on behalf of the individuals who had suffered discrimination due to their political affiliation and/or political activity.

Pursuant to the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution an individual may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that in circumstances where a person’s good name, reputation, honor or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him or her, notice of allegations and an opportunity to be heard must be given to the individual in order to provide the person an opportunity to clear his or her name. In order to state a deprivation of reputation claim, an individual must establish that:

1. the government created and publicly disseminated stigmatizing information about the individual;

2. the information was false or defamatory in nature;

3. a deprivation of some additional right or interest occurred, such as the termination of the individual’s public employment; and

4. the government failed to provide a name-clearing hearing.

The Fourteenth Amendment further insures an individual’s liberty interest in procedural due process concerning violations of his or her liberty and property interest sufficient to allow the individual to proceed with a cause of action for any violation of his or her due process rights. As a result, the government may be held responsible for any action which damaged an individual’s good name, reputation, honor and integrity and his or her legitimate claim of entitlement to pursue a chosen profession.

Charles Law Offices has successfully prosecuted claims under the Fourteenth Amendment involving the right to procedural and substantive due process. Several claims involved an employer’s circulating false, defamatory and stigmatizing information against an employee without affording the employee a procedural opportunity to be heard and to clear his or her name. Other claims involved an employer’s refusal to afford an employee a full and proper hearing prior to depriving the employee of his or her property rights. Other claims involved the employer’s improper deprivation of due process to employees concerning their liberty interest in their names and their rights to pursue their chosen profession. In each case, the attorneys at Charles Law Offices have held the government accountable for due process violations and have secured promotions, monetary settlements and/or relief on behalf of individuals who have been subjected to violations of their procedural and due process rights.