Under the First Amendment, public employees retain free speech rights against retaliation for speaking on matters of public concern when their speech does not unduly disrupt the workplace or their ability to perform their duties. Represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, FAC filed an amicus brief in Adams v. County of Sacramento, a Ninth Circuit case discussing the circumstances under which speech relates to a matter of public concern.
The case arises from a complaint brought by former law enforcement officer Kate Adams. Her complaint alleges that in 2013, Adams, who was then working for the Sacramento County sheriff’s department, forwarded an offensive text message she had received to her former friends and coworkers LeeAnnDra Marchese and Dan Morrissey, with the remark: “Some rude racist just sent this!!”
Later, in 2019, Adams learned of a misconduct allegation against Marchese and submitted that allegation to the sheriff’s department’s Internal Affairs Division. Adams alleged that multiple anonymous and unsubstantiated misconduct complaints were then filed against her.
In March 2020, Adams became Chief of Police for Rancho Cordova, and in July 2020, Adams filed an administrative complaint of harassment and retaliation against Marchese. During the investigation of that complaint, Marchese shared the offensive text message, omitting Adams’s remark of disapproval. The sheriff’s department then conducted an investigation of Adams, in which Morrissey also shared the text exchange. According to Adams, the department informed her that she could resign or be “terminated and publicly mischaracterized as a racist.” As a result, Adams resigned in September 2021.
In March 2022, the content of the text messages — without Adams’s message of condemnation — became public. Adams resigned from her adjunct teaching position at a local university and allegedly lost opportunities with two prospective employers.
In August 2022, Adams sued the County of Sacramento and the Sacramento Sheriff, alleging among other things that her First Amendment rights were violated. The trial court dismissed Adams’s First Amendment claim on the ground that Adams was not speaking on a matter of public concern when she forwarded the offensive text message. A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, emphasizing that the message was sent in a private conversation between friends and co-workers.
Our brief asks the Ninth Circuit to rehear Adams’s case en banc and hold that her speech was on a matter of public concern. The brief advocates for a broad definition of “public concern” in the interest of protecting the free speech rights of public employees while still allowing governmental employers to consider the impact of the speech on the workplace.