Term: 2010
Docket: 09-1476
Borough Of Duryea, Pennsylvania, Et Al., Petitioners v. Charles J Guarnieri
- Pro
09-1476 DURYEA V. GUARNIERI DECISION BELOW: 364 FED.APPX. 749 CERT. GRANTED 10/12/2010 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that state and local government employees may sue their employers for retaliation under the First Amendment's Petition Clause when they petitioned the government on matters of purely private concern, contrary to decisions by all ten other federal circuits and four state supreme courts that have ruled on the issue. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-3949, 08-4428
The U.S. Supreme Court case Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania, et al., v. Charles J Guarnieri (2010) revolved around the issue of whether a public employee can sue his employer for retaliation under the First Amendment's Petition Clause when he has petitioned the government through a formal mechanism such as filing a lawsuit. The plaintiff, Charles Guarnieri, had been dismissed from his position as police chief and subsequently filed union grievances which led to his reinstatement with back pay. He then sued the borough claiming that they retaliated against him because of this grievance activity by issuing directives about how he should perform his job duties upon return to work and later filing state-law criminal charges against him (which were ultimately dismissed). The jury found in favor of Guarnieri on both claims but was overturned by Third Circuit court stating that retaliation claims require proof that would deter an ordinary person from exercising their rights. However, in 2011, US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that if public employees sue their employers for retaliation under First Amendment's Petition Clause after making complaints or appeals within their departments - even if those complaints concern matters of private significance - they must meet same standards set forth for Free Speech clause cases; meaning it must be matter of public concern.
In the dissenting opinion for Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania, et al. v. Charles J Guarnieri, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to apply a public concern test in retaliation claims under the Petition Clause. He argued that this approach was inconsistent with historical understanding and precedent regarding petitions to government officials or bodies. Instead, he believed that any petition addressed to a governmental entity should be protected from retaliatory actions regardless of its content or subject matter as long as it is not frivolous. In his view, applying a public concern requirement would unduly limit citizens' rights and could deter them from seeking redress through official channels due to fear of retaliation.
