Labor & Employment Law

Employee?s complaint concerning the use of federal grant monies by his employer not speech protected by the ?First Amendment?

Kevin J.. Renken v William D. Gregory, et al, USCA 7^th Circuit, No. 07-3126

Renken sued Gregory and other officers of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [University] alleging that they had retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights when he complained about how the University was using National Science Foundation [NSF] grant funds. Essentially Renken alleged that the University had reduced his pay and terminated the NSF grant in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights when he criticized and complained about the University?s proposed use of the grant funds.

The federal district court granted the University?s motion to summarily dismiss Renken?s petition, concluding that Renken?s complaints about the grant funding were made as part of his official duties, rather than as citizen, and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment. In addition, the district court ruled that had Renken spoke as a citizen and not as part of his official duties, his speech was still not protected because it related to a matter of private interest,

namely Renken?s teaching and research, and not a matter of public concern.

The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court?s holding, indicating that Renken complained to several levels of University officials about the various difficulties he encountered in the course of administering the grant as a principal investigator and in so doing he was speaking as a faculty employee, and not as a private citizen because administering the grant as a principal investigator fell within the teaching and service duties that he was employed to perform. In the words of the court, ?Reporting alleged misconduct against an agency over which one has general supervisory responsibility is part of the duties of such an office.?

In view of its holding that Renken?s speech was made as an employee and not a citizen, it did not address whether his speech addressed a matter of public concern to determine whether it not protected by the First Amendment.

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/073126p.pdf