Waters v. Churchill - Significance, A Reasonable Belief, She Said She Said, Impact, Whistleblower Protection Act Of 1989
Cynthia Waters, Kathleen Davis
That a public hospital employee's speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it disrupts the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the facility.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Lawrence A. Marison
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
John J. Bisbee
Justices for the Court
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas
Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
31 May 1994
Upheld the hospital's claim and overturned a lower court's decision prohibiting the hospital from firing an employee based on what was thought to have been said.
- New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).
- United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).
Congress and the Nation. Vol. IX: 1993-1996: A Review of Government and Politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1998.
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1997.
- Shafroth, Frank. "Cities Gain Modest Protection from High Court Ruling on Speech."
- Webster v. Reproductive Health Services - Significance, Friends Of The Court, Dumping Roe, Roe Must Not Go, Both Sides Now
- Wards Cove Packing v. Atonio - Significance, Title Vii, New Era, New Majority, Pro-business Climate, What Is White Collar Crime?
- Waters v. Churchill - Significance
- Waters v. Churchill - A Reasonable Belief
- Waters v. Churchill - She Said She Said
- Waters v. Churchill - Impact
- Waters v. Churchill - Whistleblower Protection Act Of 1989
- Other Free Encyclopedias