Harnishfeger v. U.S

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-supervisor’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant violated her First Amendment rights by terminating her participation in VISTA program in retaliation for plaintiff publishing book that recounted her experiences as phone-sex operator. Record showed that plaintiff suffered adverse act that was likely to deter protected speech, and that her protected speech was motivating factor in her termination from VISTA program. Moreover, plaintiff’s book qualified as protected speech under “NTEU,” 513 U.S. 454, where speech contained in instant book: (1) was made outside plaintiff’s workplace; (2) involved content unrelated to plaintiff’s govt. employment; and (3) addressed public audience. Fact that plaintiff had eventually identified herself as public employee who wrote book did not require different result. Also, balancing test under Pickering favored finding that book qualified as protected speech, rather than finding that defendant was justified in terminating plaintiff on grounds of fostering efficiencies of public services due to perception that book reflected unfavorably on National Guard. Dist. Ct., though, did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of other individual defendants and United States, where record showed either that said defendants did not play role in plaintiff’s termination or were unaware of contents of plaintiff’s book.