In an unanimous decision that was released late this morning, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled the limits to free speech limits established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Garcetti decision — namely that speech pursuant to an employee’s official job duties was not protected — did not apply to claims brought under the Connecticut Constitution.
In other words, there are broad protections for employees who raise issues of public concern in both the private and public workplaces after this decision.
Back in 2012, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Schumann v. Dianon that First Amendment’s protections in the workplace didn’t extend to speech related to an employee’s job duties.
But the court left open the question of whether the Connecticut Constitution provide an independent and greater right of free speech for public (and even private) employees than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In doing, the court stated: “We decline to reach the state constitutional issue raised in the plaintiff’s alternative ground for affirmance….”
That question was finally decided by the Court today in Trusz v. UBS Realty Investors, LLC and ruled that Connecticut’s Constitution does apply such protection. It is, in essence, an adoption of the dissent in Garcetti.
The decision had been expected for some time. Before oral argument in March, I previewed the decision in a post.
Mara Lee of the Hartford Courant, also previewed the decision back then.
Back in January before oral argument , I predicted a victory for employers but that the decision wouldn’t be unanimous. So much for predictions.
In so ruling, the court is bringing its ruling back in line with the modified “Pickering/Connick” test outlined years ago by the court. The rule does not use the bright-line test of Garcetti, but still afford some protection to employers. We’re reviewing exactly what that means today.
In full disclosure, my colleagues and I prepared an amicus brief on behalf of the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, in which we argued for a limited application of the Connecticut Constitution so I’m not going to get into an in-depth discussion yet in this post.
But suffice to say that this is probably one of the most significant Connecticut Supreme Court cases for employers in some time. Stay tuned.