Plaintiff Lane was hired to be the Director for the Community Intensive Training for Youth (CITY) of the Central Alabama Community College. He was a probationary employee. As he took office, CITY faced significant financial difficulties, which led Lane to conduct a comprehensive audit of CITY’s expenses. The audit revealed that Schmitz, an Alabama State Representative on CITY’s payroll, had not been reporting to her CITY office. After unfruitful discussions with her, Lane shared his finding with the community college president and its attorney. They warned him that firing Schmitz could have negative repercussions for him and the college. Lane tried again to get Schmitz to show up for work, but she refused, and he fired her. She promised to “get him back.” Schmitz’s termination drew the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation which began in investigation into Schmitz’ employment with CITY. Lane testified before a federal grand jury about his reasons for firing her, and she was indicted. Lane testified under subpoena at her initial trial (a mistrial), and her subsequent trial at which she was convicted on three counts of mail fraud and four counts of theft. Soon afterward, Franks fired all probationary employees, including Lane, but rescinded those orders in all but 2 cases – Lane’s and one other employee. Lane sued for wrongful termination based on his First Amendment rights.

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Supreme Court decide?

2. What are the elements of a First Amendment retaliation for speech claim? How are 

those elements satisfied in this case? 

3. The court says that the lower court misconstrued its holding in Garcetti. In what way did it do so? Under the logic of this decision, could police detectives or crime lab technicians who regularly testify in court be fired for refusing to falsify their testimony (say, at the behest of prosecutors or police chiefs eager to secure convictions) without the First Amendment being violated? Why or why not?  

4. Why is the college president Franks not personally liable for a violation of Lane’s First Amendment speech rights? 

5. Are there any other legal claims that could reasonably be brought against the school and/or its president? What legal claims? Given what we know about the facts of this case, would these other legal claims likely succeed? Why or why not?