Singer v. United States Civil Service Commission
530 F.2d 247, 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 208 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government may dismiss a federal employee for public homosexual conduct if it can demonstrate a rational nexus between the employee's conduct and a potential impairment of the efficiency of the service, such as by lessening public confidence in the agency.
Facts:
- John F. Singer was hired as a clerk typist by the Seattle Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and informed his director at the time of hiring that he was a homosexual.
- At a previous job, Singer had publicly kissed and embraced a male colleague in the company elevator and cafeteria.
- While employed at the EEOC, Singer and another man applied for a marriage license, an act which generated extensive television, newspaper, and magazine publicity.
- News articles covering the marriage license application identified Singer as a typist employed by the EEOC.
- Singer was an active organizer and leader of the Seattle Gay Alliance, Inc., and his name and place of employment appeared on materials for a symposium organized by the group.
- Singer engaged in other public advocacy, including appearing on a radio talk show, placing homosexual advertisements on his car, and identifying himself as an 'openly Gay' EEOC employee in a letter to the Civil Service Commission.
Procedural Posture:
- The Civil Service Commission's Investigations Division determined John F. Singer was disqualified for 'immoral and notoriously disgraceful conduct' and directed the EEOC to fire him.
- Singer appealed the decision to a Civil Service Commission Hearing Examiner, who upheld the firing.
- Singer then appealed to the Civil Service Commission's Board of Appeals and Review, which affirmed the Hearing Examiner's decision.
- Singer filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against the Civil Service Commission, seeking injunctive relief, damages, and reinstatement.
- The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment of dismissal in favor of the Civil Service Commission.
- Singer (appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 the dismissal of a probationary federal employee for openly and publicly flaunting his homosexual lifestyle, which resulted in media publicity identifying his government agency, violate his First and Fifth Amendment rights when the government determines this conduct impairs the efficiency of the service?
Opinions:
Majority - Jameson, District Judge
No. The dismissal of a probationary federal employee for openly flaunting his homosexual lifestyle does not violate his constitutional rights where the government demonstrates a rational connection between the public conduct and the efficiency of the service. The court found that Singer's employment was not terminated because of his status as a homosexual or for private sexual acts, but for his 'openly and publicly flaunting his homosexual way of life' while being identified as a federal employee. Unlike the private conduct in Norton v. Macy, Singer's notorious public conduct could lead to a loss of public confidence in the government, thereby impairing the efficiency of the service. Applying the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, the court concluded that the government's interest as an employer in promoting the efficiency of public service outweighed Singer's interest in exercising his First Amendment rights through such public activities.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'rational nexus' test established in earlier cases like Norton v. Macy by drawing a sharp distinction between an employee's private status or conduct and public, notorious conduct. It affirmed that the government could take adverse action against an employee not for being homosexual, but for public advocacy and 'flaunting' of a homosexual lifestyle that becomes associated with their federal employer. This ruling provided government agencies with a basis to regulate employee speech and conduct that they believe could bring the agency into public disrepute, thereby impacting service efficiency, even if the employee's job performance is satisfactory. The case underscores the balancing act between a public employee's First Amendment rights and the government's significant interest as an employer.
Unlock the full brief for Singer v. United States Civil Service Commission