First Amendment protections get broader for government employees

Lawyers' Forum

By Frank B. Garrett III and Catherine R. Locallo

Frank B. Garrett III, a partner at Robbins, Schwartz, represents school districts, community colleges, local governmental bodies and public and private companies in employment law. He counsels and provides training to employers on all aspects of the employment relationship and is certified by the Illinois State Board of Education. Catherine Locallo, an associate at Robbins, Schwartz, practices labor and employment law. She has represented clients in federal court and administrative agency proceedings involving discrimination, retaliation and harassment claims.

Posted May 25, 2016 2:39 PM

Reality doesn’t bite, rather our perception of reality bites. — Anthony J. D’AngeloGenerally, the Constitution’s First Amendment protections prohibit a government employer from discharging or demoting an employee because the employee supports a particular political candidate.Recently, in Heffernan v. City of Paterson, N.J., et al., 2016 WL 1627953 14-1280, 2016 WL 1627953 (U.S. April 26, 2016), the U.S. Supreme Court expanded on this protection by ruling that where an employer demoted an employee …

To Read the Full Story

Your source for legal news and information

Print & Digital Access

Stay in the know all year long with these benefits:

Delivery to your office in downtown Chicago or mailed outside our hand-delivery zone.
Unlimited access to chicagolawbulletin.com.
Access to our e-edition and mobile site.
Breaking news alerts, Morning Lineup and Afternoon Headlines.
Exclusive access to events, discounts and more.

Order now, or call 312-644-2394 or email Subscription@LawBulletinMedia.com for details.

Be in the know. These must-read insider briefings will keep you

informed of the latest legal developments in Chicago. Sign up today!

High court says judge erred in trying to ‘rehabilitate’ juror

Guided by the principle that the purpose of voir dire is “investigation, not persuasion” — and bolstered by scholarly commentary that included a 2023 Chicago-Kent Law Review article — the Oregon Supreme Court critiqued a judge’s efforts to “rehabilitate” a prospective juror.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Current proposal isn’t enough to stem mushrooming MDLs

Assigned a multidistrict litigation (MDL) that grew from a couple of dozen cases to nearly a thousand, and observing cases that were not properly investigated or attended to by counsel, a judge in the Middle District with Georgia expressed a famous frustration with a process that has only gotten worse in the eight years since.
By Patrick Eckler
Manufacturer claims immunity for rubber bullet injury

Claiming immunity under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act when Eduardo Santos sued for severe injuries allegedly caused by a police officer who shot him in the face with a rubber bullet, Defense Technology — the company that manufactured the “kinetic impact projectile” and KIP launcher — argued the statute’s product-liability exception didn’t apply.
By Steven P. Garmisa
A judge’s ethical imperative: Follow the law or face the JIB

“The law that applies to this case is stated in these instructions, and it is your duty to follow all of them.” So states Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction 1.01(2), which the judge reads to the jurors in every criminal case before the jury begins its deliberations. If we expect jurors to follow the law, we surely must expect judges to lead by example and do the same thing.
By David P. Sterba
Defendant challenges ‘judicial legislation’ in suit over insider trading

Accused of insider trading, Michael Shvartsman argued this offense is “criminal law made by judges” that violates Article I of the U.S. Constitution and the non-delegation doctrine.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Court assesses offsets against employee’s underinsured claim

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, construing Illinois law, recently held that an employee injured in an automobile accident was entitled to recover underinsured coverage from his employer’s automobile liability policy, subject to certain reductions.
By Don R. Sampen
Iowa Supreme Court blocks testimony about business records

In a case where prosecutors relied on the hearsay rule’s business-records exception to justify testimony about documents that weren’t admitted into evidence, the Iowa Supreme Court, citing decisions from across the country, reversed because “the rules of evidence create a ‘business records exception’ to the rule against hearsay and not a ‘testimony about business records exception.’”
By Steven P. Garmisa
Arizona high court rolls back clock to 1864 in abortion case

The Comstock Act of 1873 was referenced in the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in the mifepristone case recently heard, and may play a factor in at least some of the justices’ decisions. Turns out, Arizona told a certain justice, we know you like beer, hold this beer.
By Daniel A. Cotter