Legal Opinion
Richards v. City of Lowell
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided January 31, 2007No. Civil Action 03-10705-RCLPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
LINDSAY, District Judge.
The court grants the motions of the defendants for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff has not shown that he suffered retaliation in his employment because he engaged in constitutionally protected speech. As Magistrate Judge Dein determined, the statements at issue were not constitutionally protected because they were not made by the plaintiff merely as a citizen, speaking on matters of public concern, but were made pursuant to the plaintiffs official duties. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). The court also…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Thomas v. ArnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. MyersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gershwain Sprauve v. West Indian Company LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- American Federation of State v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Mullaney v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Superior Court · 2008