1 / 10

Lane v. Franks: First Amendment Rights and Qualified Immunity Explained

This summary outlines the case of Lane v. Franks, where public employee Lane was terminated after reporting a phantom employee during a payroll audit. He alleged violation of his First Amendment rights after testifying in a criminal trial against his employer, Franks. Courts ruled in favor of Franks, noting Lane's speech was not protected as it was made in his capacity as a public employee rather than a private citizen. The analysis draws on key cases, Garcetti v. Ceballos and Morris v. Crow, to discuss the implications of qualified immunity and public employee speech rights, with further developments anticipated from the U.S. Supreme Court.

natane
Télécharger la présentation

Lane v. Franks: First Amendment Rights and Qualified Immunity Explained

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lane v. Franks First Amendment and Qualified Immunity

  2. Summary of Facts

  3. Lane was a public employee. He audited the payroll for CACC (i.e. public entity). He reported his findings Re. a phantom employee (i.e. Schmitz). He was warned not to terminate Schmitz’ employment. Lane was fired soon after he testified in the criminal trial. Lane filed a civil action against Franks in violation of his First Amendment Rights. Both the District and Appellate Court found in favor of Franks.

  4. Legal Findings

  5. Lane was recognized in his capacity as a public employee. • Lane’s speech was NOT considered as a speech of a citizen on a matter of a public concern. • Lane failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.

  6. Legal Analysis

  7. Based on both Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 1958 (2006) and Morris v. Crow 142 F.3d 1379 (11th Cir. 1998) Lane’s statements were pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, therefore his speech had no First Amendment protection. • Franks would be protected under the qualified immunity if he is able to prove that he did not violate any laws by firing Lane.

  8. “Expert” Opinion

  9. Next Step • In deciding to hear the Lane case, the U.S. Supreme Court has apparently decided to resolve this split among the circuits on the issue of First Amendment protection for testimony. • http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/us-supreme-court-will-hear-new-case-on-public-employee-free-speech-rights/

  10. TO BE CONTINUED! Special Thanks to District Courts of Alabama The 11th Circuit The USSC

More Related