Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
2011 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held the public concern test limits Petition Clause claims by public employees. More specifically, state and local government employees may not sue their employers for retaliation under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment when they petition the government on matters of private concern. To show that an employer interfered with rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, an employee must show that his speech related to a matter of public concern. The court held that this test also applies when the employee invokes the Petition Clause.[2] The case is significant under the Petition Clause because 1.) it recognized that lawsuits are “Petitions” under the First Amendment and 2.) it explains that the Petition Clause and Speech Clause are not always coextensive, and leaves open the possibility that here may be additional claims under the Petition Clause which plaintiffs may invoke consistent with the purpose of that Clause.[3]
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri | |
---|---|
Argued March 22, 2011 Decided June 20, 2011 | |
Full case name | Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania, et al., Petitioners v. Charles J. Guarnieri |
Docket no. | 09-1476 |
Citations | 564 U.S. 379 (more) 131 S. Ct. 2488; 180 L. Ed. 2d 408 |
Case history | |
Prior | Motion granted, unreported 3:05-CV-1422 (M.D. Pa. 2010); affirmed, 364 Fed. Appx. 749 (3d Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 562 U.S. 960 (2010). |
Subsequent | Further remanded to the district court, unreported (3d Cir. August 2, 2011) |
Holding | |
A petition must address a matter of public concern. Otherwise, a public employer is free to retaliate against the public employee, even if the employee won the grievance he filed and brought suit in federal court.[1] Third Circuit reversed and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Concurrence | Thomas |
Concur/dissent | Scalia |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |