No, the department can't fire her for that. Her comment, though shocking, was about politics and the President, which is a 'matter of public concern' protected by free speech. Since she was just a secretary with no real power and her private comment didn't cause any real disruption at the office, her right to express her opinion outweighs the department's reasons for firing her. The government can't fire people just for saying things it doesn't like.

Yes, the department could fire her. Wishing the President dead is not a legitimate political opinion; it's supporting violence. A law enforcement agency needs its employees to respect the law, not cheer for assassins. Such a comment can damage morale and make the public lose trust in the police, and it doesn't matter if she was 'just a secretary.' The boss had every right to say that kind of talk is not allowed at work.

No, firing her was wrong. This is a simple case. She said something stupid in a private conversation that nobody was supposed to hear. The idea that this one little comment could cause any real harm to the police department is ridiculous. She was punished too harshly for a private, off-the-cuff remark that is protected by free speech.

The Supreme Court decided it was wrong to fire McPherson because she was talking about something that a lot of people care about, and what she said didn't make it hard for the office to work properly. They looked at McPherson's right to say what she thinks versus the government's need to have an office that runs smoothly. They decided that since McPherson's comment was private and didn't cause any problems at work, her free speech was more important than the office's worries.

Some judges disagreed and said that McPherson's comment wasn't about something people should care about and wasn't protected by free speech. They thought that saying you hope the President gets killed is too close to supporting a serious crime. They also said that even if it was about something people cared about, the boss had a good reason to not let employees say things like that because it's a police office.

One judge agreed with the main decision that McPherson's private comment was protected by free speech. He said it's very rare that a boss's reasons for not liking what an employee said in private would be good enough to punish them for it. He didn't think one comment like McPherson's would really hurt how the office worked.

The inquiry is "whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker's duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise."

"The arguably `inappropriate or controversial character of a statement is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.'"Id

"The threshold question... is whether [the employee's] speech may be `fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern.'"

"The law is well established that a [public] employee may not be discharged in retaliation for speech protected under the First Amendment."

There, the employee, a clerical employee at a constable's office, commented to a coworker, following the assassination attempt on President Reagan, "if they go for him again, I hope they get him."

"In performing [Pickering] balancing,[an employee's] statement will not be considered in a vacuum; the manner, time, and place of the employee's expression are relevant, as is the context in which the dispute arose."

A] State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech

Instead, a balancing analysis must be undertaken "between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees" before any speech can be deemed to be protected.

Finding that the Sheriff's office's interests didn't outweigh the employee's interest in her speech, the Supreme Court emphasized that was no "danger that [she] had discredited the office by making her statement in public

This balancing test "is necessary in order to accommodate the dual role of the public employer as a provider of public services and as a government entity operating under the constraints of the First Amendment."

Yes, the discharge violates the employee's First Amendment rights. A public employee's speech on a matter of public concern is protected unless the employer's interest in workplace efficiency outweighs the employee's interest in expression. First, McPherson's statement addressed a matter of public concern, as it was made in the context of a conversation about the President's policies immediately following a news report of national significance. While inappropriate, the statement was not a true threat and its controversial character does not remove it from the protection of public concern. Second, balancing the interests, the state's interest in a functioning office does not outweigh McPherson's rights. Given McPherson's purely clerical role with no policymaking, confidential, or public-facing duties, her private statement posed a minimal danger to the agency's mission. There was no evidence that her remark interfered with the efficient functioning of the office, disrupted discipline, or discredited the agency.

No, the discharge does not violate the employee's First Amendment rights. McPherson's statement was not speech on a matter of public concern; it was a voiced hope for the President to be killed, which lies near the category of unprotected speech like threats and 'fighting words.' The preceding political conversation was merely the motive for the remark, not its content. Even if it were a matter of public concern, the Constable's interest in maintaining discipline, morale, and public confidence in a law enforcement agency far outweighs McPherson's interest in making the statement. A law enforcement agency cannot be required to tolerate an employee 'cheering for the robbers,' and such a statement carries a clear potential to undermine office relations and public trust, regardless of the employee's non-policymaking status.

Yes, the discharge violates the employee's First Amendment rights. The full constitutional analysis is largely unnecessary because this case involves a single, offhand comment made during a private conversation with no expectation of being overheard. It is an unusual case where an employer's interest would be great enough to justify punishing an employee for this type of private speech. The risk that such a comment will lower morale or undermine the mission of the office 'borders on the fanciful.' The constable made an intemperate employment decision based on an ill-considered, but protected, private comment.

The Supreme Court held that McPherson's discharge was improper because her speech addressed a matter of public concern and did not impair the efficiency of the public services performed by the Constable's office. The Court applied a balancing test, weighing McPherson's interest in commenting upon matters of public concern against the government's interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. The Court found that McPherson's speech did not disrupt the workplace, undermine her ability to perform her duties, or interfere with the regular operation of the office. Therefore, the Constable's interest in maintaining an efficient office did not outweigh McPherson's First Amendment rights, especially considering the private nature of her speech.

The dissent argued that McPherson's statement did not address a matter of public concern and was not protected by the First Amendment. Scalia contended that expressing hope that the President would be assassinated crossed the line from protected political hyperbole to unprotected advocacy of violent crime. Even if the speech were on a matter of public concern, the dissent maintained that the Constable's strong interest in preventing employees from making statements approving of violent crimes outweighed McPherson's First Amendment interest in making the statement.

The concurrence agreed with the majority that McPherson's private speech was protected by the First Amendment but found it unnecessary to engage in the extensive Connick/Pickering analysis. Powell noted that it would be unusual for an employer's legitimate interests to justify punishing an employee for this type of private speech that routinely takes place in the workplace. The risk that McPherson's single, offhand comment would lower morale, disrupt the workforce, or undermine the office's mission was minimal.

Rankin v. McPherson

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot