Waters v. Churchill

The ruling established that the government as an employer can restrict its employees' speech under certain conditions, but the public employer must conduct a sufficient investigation before taking action. To avoid violating the First Amendment, the employer must establish a "reasonable belief" that the contested comments were either disruptive to the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency's operation or were not related to a topic of public interest. Left undefined were the investigative procedures an employer should follow in establishing that belief thus introducing greater uncertainty in an agency's accountability for personnel actions.

At dinner break in January of 1987 while on duty at McDonough District Hospital, a public hospital, nurses Cheryl Churchill and Melanie Perkins-Graham discussed work. Churchill worked in obstetrics and Perkins-Graham was considering a transfer to that department. A fellow worker, Mary Lou Ballew, overheard the discussion and, displeased with Churchill's remarks, relayed what she thought she heard to Cynthia Waters, Churchill's supervisor. Ballew claimed Churchill bitterly described an unfavorable work environment in obstetrics, blamed Waters and the hospital's vice president of nursing, Kathleen Davis, for the situation, and cited irreconcilable differences with Waters. The comments apparently led Perkins-Graham not to pursue the transfer.

When approached, Churchill provided a different version of her remarks. She claimed her comments focused primarily on certain training practices of the hospital that could possibly have lowered the quality of nursing care. Two other fellow workers who also overheard the discussion agreed with Churchill's account. Churchill claimed Ballew was biased against her due to a previous incident. Waters and Davis conducted several inquiries before firing Churchill for what they believed was said. Churchill filed a formal internal complaint with the hospital administration. The complaint was rejected following an interview and review of reports prepared by Waters and Davis. Churchill then filed suit claiming violation of her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court previously provided guidance to lower courts for cases involving public employees' speech restrictions. The Court found in Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) that government can restrict its employees' speech to a greater extent than private citizens. The Court ruled disciplinary action against a public employee for speech "violates the First Amendment only if it is in retaliation for the employee's speech on a matter of public concern." Later in 1983, the Court developed a test in Connick v. Myers to better determine when a public employee may be appropriately disciplined or discharged for their speech. Essentially, the Court ruled that a public employee's speech is protected by the First Amendment if it is about a subject of public concern and not disruptive to the efficiency and effectiveness of an agency achieving its goals. The balancing test involved weighing interests in agency efficiency, employee performance, and workplace harmony against the employee's First Amendment rights.

In applying the Connick test, the U.S. District Court ruled in 1991 against Churchill claiming that neither version of the conversation was a matter of public concern, and, even if so, the disruption from her behavior erased any constitutional protection. The following year, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision. By accepting Churchill's version of the conversation, the court found it a matter of public interest and not disruptive. Possible violations of state nursing regulations and the quality of nursing care at the hospital were matters of public interest. The court concluded that employee action should be based on what was actually said as determined by a jury trial, not what the employer thought was said. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case in 1993 to resolve the conflict between the two lower courts.