Tomorrow's First Amendment patronage case at #SCOTUS — http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/heffernan-v-paterson/ … — could be a doozy.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Petitioner: 3rd Cir's "view makes no practical sense." / Respondent: Petitioner urges "novel and destructive expansion" of 1st Am. doctrine.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
And! The SG's Office has sided with the demoted officer, Heffernan, and against the City of Paterson, N.J.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Issue: What happens when govt officials retaliate against someone bc of perceived political acts of employee — but the officials are wrong?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
They thought Heffernan was supporting opponent of the current mayor, so demoted him. He wasn't, so the city says it can't be retaliation!
6 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner I guess their only avenue would be to argue he was participating in political activity, which is barred for city employees...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brewfangrb
@brewfangrb No, the whole argument here is the opposite of all of what you're saying, which would have been the case if he WAS taking sides.5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner Essentially, once it's shown he *wasn't* in a protected activity, it's irrelevant why he was terminated.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
@brewfangrb The question here is: Does mistake of fact get them out of it (city), when their intention was retaliation (employee)?
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner I can't help but feeling this spells doom if they accept the city's position.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.