Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania v. Guarnieri, 131 S. Ct. 2488 (June 20, 2011)

The Supreme Court holds that a governmental employee's claim for retaliation pursuant to the Petition Clause of the First Amendment fails unless the petition relates to a matter of public concern.

The plaintiff filed a union grievance following his termination as chief of police of the Borough of Duryea. Pursuant to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the police union and the borough, the plaintiff was reinstated as police chief. However, upon his return to work, the borough council enacted several directives because it "wanted to be sure that the chief understood what was going to be expected of him upon his return" to work. In light of the directives, the police chief filed a second union grievance and a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his first union grievance was a petition protected by the Petition Clause of the First Amendment and the directives issued by the council members were retaliation for that "protected activity." The case proceeded to trial, and the plaintiff prevailed on his claim. On appeal, the borough argued that the police chief's grievances and lawsuit did not address matters of public concern. Although several circuit courts have held that "allegedly retaliatory actions by government employers against government employees may not give rise to liability under the Petition Clause unless the employee's petition related to a matter of public concern," the Third Circuit rejected this view. Rather, the Third Circuit expressly concluded that "a public employee who has petitioned the government through a formal mechanism such as the filing of a lawsuit or grievance is protected under the Petition Clause from retaliation for that activity, even if the petition concerns a matter solely of private concern." The Supreme Court, however, reversed the Third Circuit's decision and determined that a government employee's retaliation claim pursuant to the Petition Clause of the First Amendment will fail if the petition is on a matter of purely private concern. In so holding, the Court expressly noted that "[w]hen a public employee sues a government employer under the First Amendment's Speech Clause, the employee must show that he or she spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern" and that, "while the First Amendment invests public employees with certain rights, it does not empower them to constitutionalize the employee grievance." As a result, the Court noted that the framework used to govern Speech Clause claims against a government employer, when applied to the Petition Clause, will protect the interests of the government and the First Amendment. Accordingly, the Court noted that the "right of a public employee under the Petition Clause is a right to participate as a citizen, through petitioning activity, in the democratic process. It is not a right to transform everyday employment disputes into matters for constitutional litigation in the federal courts."

Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2011