Public employment law Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Public employment law - Assignment Example superintendent in informing or misinforming the districts taxpayers in the school of the reasons for not seeking additional revenue in the form of tax (Haynes, 2003). The boards’ position on the issue was that the contents of the letter were fabricated thus leading to the dismissal of Mr. Pickering from the teaching staff. The teacher appealed the decision on the basis of a violation of his rights as represented in the first and the fourteenth amendments that gave the teacher the right to speak out as a loyal citizen on any issue of public interest. Both the Will County Circuit Court and the Illinois Supreme Court after analyzing the issue affirmed the Board’s decision to dismiss the teacher. Only the U.S Supreme court found reasonable ground to overturn the dismissal based on a violation of the freedom of speech as made possible by the First Amendment (Haynes, 2003). A keen analysis of the issues surrounding this case reveals various flaws and rationality depending on the perspective one views it. For instance, if it were considered from the aspect that Mr. Pickering was a citizen of the United States, then, he was acting within his legal limits by commenting on the conduct of the Educational Board. Such issues as he rose are by all means of great public interests since they constitute mismanagement of funds. However, the most logical way to view this issue is perhaps that of the First Amendment. Mr. Pickering was justified in claiming that his right of expression was maybe violated. He has reasonable grounds to argue so since, after all, all citizens are protected in their speech. What Mr. Pickering did not consider was probably the facts also enshrined in the First Amendment under which this freedom of speech is not guaranteed and which it can actually be regarded as an abuse of the rights bestowed on an individual. This is the view that the law holds in as far as employment law is concerned (Haynes, 2003). While the constitution protects Mr. Pickering