Waters et al. v. Churchill et al.
511 U.S. 661 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a public employer takes adverse action against an employee for their speech, a court must apply the First Amendment balancing test to the facts as the employer reasonably found them to be, not to the facts as they are ultimately determined by a judicial factfinder.
Facts:
- Cheryl Churchill and Melanie Perkins-Graham, both nurses at McDonough District Hospital, had a conversation during a dinner break at work.
- Perkins-Graham was considering a transfer to the obstetrics department where Churchill worked.
- Another nurse, Mary Lou Ballew, partially overheard the conversation and reported to supervisor Cynthia Waters that Churchill was criticizing Waters and the department, causing Perkins-Graham to lose interest in transferring.
- Waters and hospital Vice President Kathleen Davis interviewed Perkins-Graham, who corroborated that Churchill had made 'unkind and inappropriate negative things' about Waters and hospital administration.
- Churchill contended the conversation was primarily about her concerns over the hospital's cross-training policy, which she believed endangered patient care, and that she actually defended Waters.
- Two other hospital employees who overheard parts of the conversation, Dr. Koch and nurse Welty, had recollections that matched Churchill's version.
- Hospital management did not interview Koch or Welty before making their decision.
- After an internal grievance process, hospital president Stephen Hopper fired Churchill based on the information provided by Ballew and Perkins-Graham.
Procedural Posture:
- Cheryl Churchill sued McDonough District Hospital and its administrators in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging her termination violated her First Amendment rights.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, granted summary judgment to the hospital defendants.
- Churchill, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the inquiry must turn on what the speech actually was, not on what the employer thought it was.
- The hospital administrators, as petitioners, sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 First Amendment require a court to determine what a government employee actually said when evaluating a retaliatory discharge claim, or should the court instead evaluate the employer's decision based on what the employer reasonably believed the employee said?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No. A court should not determine for itself what was said, but instead must evaluate the employer's action based on what the employer reasonably believed the employee said. The government's interest in achieving its goals as an employer is significant and allows it to operate with more efficiency than when it acts as a sovereign regulating the public. Requiring a public employer to adhere to judicial fact-finding procedures would be overly burdensome and inefficient. However, this deference is not absolute; the employer's conclusions must be reached in good faith and be based on a reasonable investigation. An employer may not act based on no evidence or ignore readily available, powerful contradictory evidence. In this case, the hospital's investigation was reasonable, and the speech they reasonably believed Churchill made was potentially disruptive enough to justify termination. The case is remanded, however, to determine if this reason was a pretext for firing Churchill for other, protected speech.
Concurring - Justice Souter
Yes, I agree with the plurality's reasonableness test, but write to emphasize that the employer must not only conduct a reasonable investigation but must also genuinely believe the report upon which it acts. An employer violates the First Amendment if it uses a third-party report as a pretext for discipline when it doubts the report's accuracy or suspects the employee's speech was, in fact, protected. Under the Marks rule, because a majority of the Court agrees that conduct failing the plurality's reasonableness test is unconstitutional, the plurality's test constitutes the holding of the Court.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No. The proper inquiry is whether the employer disciplined the employee in retaliation for protected speech, not whether the employer's factual conclusions were reasonable. The plurality invents a new, unprecedented First Amendment procedural right to an investigation that is inconsistent with due process jurisprudence for at-will employees. The existing First Amendment standard only forbids intentional retaliation against protected speech. If an employer makes an honest mistake of fact and fires an employee based on a good-faith belief that the speech was unprotected, there is no retaliatory intent and thus no constitutional violation. The traditional pretext analysis, as established in Mt. Healthy, is sufficient to protect employees from being targeted for their protected speech.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. A court must determine what the employee actually said. The plurality's 'reasonableness' standard provides less protection for a fundamental First Amendment right than the law ordinarily provides for basic contract and statutory rights in the private sector. A First Amendment violation occurs when an employee is fired for speech that was, in fact, protected, regardless of the employer's reasonable but mistaken belief. Placing the risk of factual error on the employer is the standard approach in our legal system and correctly incentivizes employers to act with care and get the facts straight before infringing on constitutional rights. The focus should be on whether the employee’s freedom of speech was actually abridged, not on the purity of the employer's motives or procedures.
Analysis:
This case establishes the controlling legal standard for public employee speech cases where the content of the speech is in dispute. It charts a middle course, rejecting the Seventh Circuit's rule that courts must determine what was actually said, and also rejecting the employer's argument that its subjective belief is dispositive. By creating the 'reasonable investigation' standard, the Court gives deference to government employers to manage their workforce efficiently but imposes a procedural safeguard to protect First Amendment rights from careless or pretextual disciplinary actions. This holding shifts the focus of litigation in such cases from solely the nature of the speech to also include the reasonableness of the employer's fact-finding process.
