Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

Page 2 -- March 25, 2004 First ,Amendment -- Zoning administrator fired after critical memo Claims free speech rights violated Citation: Birr v. Dorchester CounU, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03-1671 (2004) The 4ch Circui: has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wesz Virginia. SOUTH CAROLINA (02/04/04) -- Birr was fired from his job as a zoning administrator after he sent an internal government memorandum critically sum- mar/zing a councilman's request that a particular zoning investigation be stopped. BLrt sued the county, clairrfing his fking violated his free speech fights. The court ruled in favor of the county. Birr appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The coun~ did not violate Birt's tYee speech fights when it fired him. Citizens do not relinquish all of their First Amendment rights when they accept public employment. However, the determination of whether a restric- tion imposed on a public employee's speech violated the First Amendment requh:ed a balance between the employee's interests as a citizen in comment- ing upon matters of public concern and the state's interest in promoting effi- ciency of the public services it performs through its employees. Speech hnvolved a matter of public concern when it concerned social, po- litical, or other community interest issues. The place where the speech oc- curred was irrelevant. An employee could speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern at the workplace, and he or she 7could speak as an employee away from the workplace. The important question was whether the speech was made primarily as a citizen or as an employee. Often, speech by public employees in the course of their job duties involved matters of vital concern to the public without giving those employees a First )~nendment right to dictate to the state how they would do the/_r jobs. Birt's private, internal memorandum summarizing a councilman's request that a particular zoning investigation be halted did not address a matter of public concern because it was directly related to Birt's duties as a zoning administrator, did not assert any wrongdoing by the councilman, and was directed only to those employees who needed to be notified to cease their investigation. see also: Ufo?X? v. Gilmore, 216 F. Sd 401 (2000). z'ee c~.i~'o:C.2..,m, zt, x- '" v ...... :'k!verx, z,5'] [_:.S. ? e/~~ l; '9,~z, .... ~. 130 ,~ ?%04 C, uini¢,n ?,2r~iishin!] ~COUD. A4y ;eprcducfion is ;~roJ'~loited, For more iniormadon ¢Jease call (817) 542-0048.