Factual scenario:

Ron Shelton is employed as a Labor Relations Manager for the East Carolina Transportation Authority (TA). It is an at-will position. In this position, Shelton assists in resolving disputes among the TA and the TA's unionized employeeshe oversees mediation sessions, sits as a hearing officer to resolve grievance disputes, and assists in contract negotiations between the TA and its unionized employees. Shelton's direct supervisor, Melvin Moore, is the TA's Deputy Director of Operations.

TA employees belong to the Transportation Union of America (TUA). The TUA fills many roles, including the representation of its members in labor disputes and political fundraising for candidates who are sympathetic to the position of its members.

Some factions of the TUA do not get along. TUA Local 136 handles TA issues in the northern part of East Carolina. TUA Local 136 also handles nearly all of the political fundraising for TA members for the entire state. TUA Local 205 handles TA issues in the southern part of East Carolina.

For years, TUA Local 136 leaders have been soliciting campaign contributions from TUA Local 205 leaders and members. TUA Local 205 leaders have grown frustrated because they believe that, despite contributing at the same level as TUA Local 136 members and leaders, Local 205's members have been getting the short end of the stick. Specifically, in recent contracts, locality pay adjustments for workers in the northern part of the state has grown, while locality pay adjustments for workers in the southern part of the state have remained stagnant.

By April of this past year, the Local 205 leaders had had enough. When leaders of Local 136 solicited campaign contributions, the Local 205 leaders said they would not be contributing anything until their members were treated fairly.

This infuriated the Local 136 leaders, all of whom had a close relationship with Shelton's supervisor, Melvin Moore. Moore instructed Shelton to rule against Local 205 members in every grievance hearingregardless of the merits of any such grievanceuntil Local 205 members began making contributions again.

Shelton was concerned about treating the workers unfairly and made efforts to resolve the in-fighting between TUA's leadership. He was also concerned about the cozy relationship between Moore and the Local 136 leadership, and suspected that Moore may have been receiving illegal kickbacks from said leadership in return for his unwavering support. (Moore lived a lavish lifestyle that belied his government salary.)

Before the next round of grievance hearings, Shelton, who was unable to resolve the differences between TUA leadership, approached Sam Washington, the TA's executive director, and informed him of his concerns. Shelton also informed Washington that he (Shelton) thought it would be best to refer the matter to the state attorney general's office, given the likelihood of Moore's criminal activity.

Washington, who was appointed to his position by a governor who received tremendous support from the TUA, had no interest in getting law enforcement involved. Instead, the day after his meeting with Shelton, he terminated him. Prior to this termination, Shelton had received glowing job performance reviews, and no one complained about him or his work.

Following his termination, Shelton sues the TA and Washington for terminating him in violation of his First Amendment right to free speechspecifically, the reporting of the problems to Washington and the suggestion that they be referred to the attorney general's office.

Instructions:

Do you agree with the following? Conclude "yes" or "no" and explain why. In your explanation, be sure to provide the rule and apply the law to the facts:

Issue: The issue is whether or not Shelton's termination violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Rule: "A public employee's right of free speech is subject to two significant limitations: The speech must relate to a matter of public concern and The employee's speech must outweigh the government's interest in maintaining an efficient and effective workplace." Pickering V. Board of Education 391 U.S. 563 (1968)

Analysis: Here, like in Pickering, Shelton has the right to exercise his First Amendment because he knows issues of public importance. It is reasonable to argue that the public should know that Moore received kickbacks from Local 136 leadership in return for his unwavering support. Shelton has a strong case demonstrating that he was terminated because Sam Washington (executive director) wanted to prevent him from referring the matter to the state attorney general's office, given the likelihood of Moore's criminal activity. Also, he can prove that he was terminated despite receiving glowing job performance reviews, and no one complained about him or his work. Shelton was wrongfully terminated because, despite the employment contract being at will, the reason was illegal. On the other hand, government employer has the burden of proof and will have to demonstrate that Shelton's speech "actually impairs efficiency or effectiveness in the workplace to Trump the protection by the first amendment." Conclusion: Yes, Shelton's termination violated his First Amendment right to free speech because the speech relates to a matter of public concern.