Slide 1

Lane v. Franks First Amendment and Qualified Immunity Slide 2 Summary of Facts Slide 3 1.Lane was a public employee. 2.He audited the payroll for CACC (i.e. public entity). 3.He reported his findings Re. a phantom employee (i.e. Schmitz). 4.He was warned not to terminate Schmitz employment. 5.Lane was fired soon after he testified in the criminal trial. 6.Lane filed a civil action against Franks in violation of his First Amendment Rights. 7.Both the District and Appellate Court found in favor of Franks. Slide 4 Legal Findings Slide 5 Lane was recognized in his capacity as a public employee. Lanes speech was NOT considered as a speech of a citizen on a matter of a public concern. Lane failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Slide 6 Legal Analysis Slide 7 Based on both Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 1958 (2006) and Morris v. Crow 142 F.3d 1379 (11th Cir. 1998) Lanes statements were pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, therefore his speech had no First Amendment protection. Franks would be protected under the qualified immunity if he is able to prove that he did not violate any laws by firing Lane. Slide 8 Expert Opinion Slide 9 Next Step In deciding to hear the Lane case, the U.S. Supreme Court has apparently decided to resolve this split among the circuits on the issue of First Amendment protection for testimony. http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblo g.com/employment/us-supreme-court-will-hear- new-case-on-public-employee-free-speech-rights/ http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblo g.com/employment/us-supreme-court-will-hear- new-case-on-public-employee-free-speech-rights/ Slide 10 TO BE CONTINUED! Special Thanks to District Courts of Alabama The 11 th Circuit The USSC