Employment Consulting & Expert Services

London | Miami

  

Employment Aviation News

Articles & News

GMR consultants are experts in their fields, providing consulting and
expert witness testimony to leading companies worldwide.

Edward Lane was employed as the probationary director of Central Alabama Community College’s program for at- risk youth. The program was titled, “Community Intensive Training for Youth Program,” or CITY.
Lane found that the then-state representative, Suzanne Schmitz, was on CITY’s payroll yet not reporting for work and had not contributed any tangible work for the program. When Lane voiced his concerns about this, he was warned that terminating her would have potential negative repercussions for Lane and the community college as a whole. Lane ignored the warning from the community college president and fired Schmitz after she refused to report to work.
Schmitz filed a lawsuit looking to get her job back and allegedly told another CITY employee that she vowed to “get Lane back” for terminating her.
Not long after, the FBI started an investigation and contacted Lane for information regarding Schmitz. Schmitz was prosecuted by the US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama for fraudulently arranging and concealing a no-show job for herself with CITY.
Lane was present before a federal grand jury where he testified and at the rest of Schmitz’s trials for fraud involving a program receiving federal funds. She was convicted on all counts but one.
After Schmitz’s first trial, Lane was actually let go from his job as part of a layoff that involved 29 employees. All but two of the 29 laid-off employees had their terminations rescinded when Steve Franks, the community college president, realized that most of them weren’t probationary employees. Lane ended up suing Franks for damages.
The district court ruled that Lane’s testimony was made as part of his official duties as CITY’s director, and not as a regular citizen, citing that this would mean his First Amendment protections didn’t apply. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, but also added a tiny footnote.
The Court said that because there is a split of authority over whether a subpoenaed testimony is speech as a citizen or of public concern, Franks would have qualified immunity from any damages lawsuit.
Ultimately, Lane should have been protected under the First Amendment because he was speaking as a citizen on matters of public concern.   At the time, however, this First Amendment entitlement wasn’t exactly crystal clear.
If employees aren’t protected under a First Amendment and they are subpoenaed for any reason, what kind of message is that sending to workers who don’t have a choice but to testify?
Franks attorney argued that it is the character of the speech that has to be looked at to determine if the speaker should be protected under the First Amendment.
HR experts explain that it needs to be clear whether the First Amendment only applies to the expression of view and not to the conveyance of facts.
The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision by June.