By Jim Cline and Mark Anderson
In Bagby v. City of Morristown, a Tennessee court ordered a trial for Officer Bagby’s claim that the City of Morristown Police Department violated his freedom of speech by firing him in retaliation for comments he made at a City Council meeting.
Bagby was suspended for not filling out a citation correctly, becoming confrontational when asked to correct the citation, and then filling out the citation in an intentionally substandard way. After Bagby was suspended, the Mayor told him that he could appeal his suspension at an open City Council meeting. When Bagby appeared at the City Council meeting he publicly stated that his Captain had set an illegal ticket quota. Bagby stated that officers were required to issue two citations per day, and that the Department’s policy was, “200 [tickets] a year or lose your gear.” After Bagby made these statements, the Department fired him. Bagby sued, claiming violation of the First Amendment.
The Department asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that Bagby was not speaking as a citizen at the Council meeting but was instead attempting to appeal a disciplinary action against him. Bagby, on the other hand, argued that he engaged in constitutionally protected speech when he spoke out about the unlawful quota at the Council meeting and that was the reason he had been fired from his job.
Addressing the parties’ argument, the court found that while Bagby may have been speaking at the City Council meeting with the intent to appeal the disciplinary action against him, the focus of his speech was not his personal wrongdoing, but potential wrongdoing of the police department. The court noted prior caselaw holding that statements exposing possible corruption in a police department are exactly the type of statements that demand strong First Amendment protections. The court further noted that Bagby’s words regarding a quota that was clearly illegal under Tennessee law brought to light an actual or potential breach of public trust on the part of the government. Therefore, the court held, Bagby’s words at the Council meeting were entitled to First Amendment protection. Consequently, it ordered that the case proceed to a jury trial for a determination as to whether the City of Morristown had retaliated against Bagby by firing him in violation of his First Amendment Free Speech rights.
This case reminds us of the important distinction between speech that is purely for personal interest versus speech that is made as a citizen. The important point is not why the government employee spoke, but what he or she said. Public safety employees do not lose their rights as United States citizens to speak out on issues of public concern when they enter the workplace. When a public safety employee speaks out on a matter of public concern, that speech is constitutionally protected.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on The Right to Free Speech, and Validity of Department Rules Regulating Speech**
