Renken v. Gregory
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18908, 28 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 229, 541 F.3d 769 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.
Facts:
- Dr. Kevin Renken, a tenured professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, was responsible for teaching, research, and public service.
- Renken, acting as the principal investigator (PI), secured a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant to develop a new laboratory for undergraduate students.
- The grant required the University to provide matching funds, and the administration of such grants was a factor in faculty promotions.
- Dean William Gregory proposed a plan for the University's matching funds and required Renken's signature for approval.
- Renken refused to sign, sending a letter to Gregory criticizing the plan as a potential violation of NSF regulations and complaining about other administrative issues, such as delayed payments to student workers.
- Renken escalated his complaints internally, filing a formal complaint with the University Committee and emailing the Board of Regents about Gregory's alleged mismanagement and vindictive actions.
- After Renken rejected a compromise, the University decided to cancel the project and return the grant funds to the NSF.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Kevin Renken filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against University officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights.
- The University (defendants) moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted the University's motion for summary judgment, concluding Renken's speech was made as part of his official duties and was not protected.
- Renken, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public university professor's speech complaining about the internal administration of a grant, for which he serves as the principal investigator, constitute speech made pursuant to his official duties and therefore lack First Amendment protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Manion, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A public university professor's speech complaining about the internal administration of a grant for which he is the principal investigator is made pursuant to his official duties and is not protected by the First Amendment. The court applied the standard from Garcetti v. Ceballos, which holds that speech made by a public employee pursuant to their official duties is not protected. Renken's responsibilities as a professor included teaching and research, and obtaining and administering grants was a key part of fulfilling those duties, as he himself acknowledged it was a major factor for promotion. His complaints about funding improprieties and administrative hurdles were made in his capacity as the PI for the grant project. Therefore, he was speaking as a faculty employee performing his job, not as a private citizen addressing a matter of public concern.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and applies the Garcetti v. Ceballos framework to the academic setting, clarifying that a professor's speech regarding the administration of their own grants falls within their official duties. It narrows the scope of First Amendment protection for public employees by taking a broad, practical view of what constitutes 'official duties,' looking beyond formal job descriptions to what an employee is actually expected to perform. The ruling suggests that when academics or other public employees complain internally about the management of projects they oversee, their speech is likely to be viewed as unprotected employee speech rather than protected citizen speech, impacting their ability to challenge retaliatory actions from their employers.
