Kirchmann

Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 702·57 Cal. App. 4th 595·67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 268·97 Daily Journal DAR 11491·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7154
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 3, 1997E017954California6,808 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richli, J.

“Government employees are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work; public debate may gain much from their informed opinions . . . .” (Waters v. Churchill (1994) 511 U.S. 661, 674 [ 114 S.Ct. 1878, 1887 , 128 L.Ed.2d 686, 698 ] (plur. opn. of O’Connor, J.).) In recognition of that fact, the First Amendment prohibits dismissal of a public employee for criticizing his or her employer unless the employee’s free speech interest is outweighed by the employer’s interest in avoiding disruption. (Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) 391 U.S. 563, 574 [ 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1737 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811, 820 ].)

Norma Kirchmann, an employee of the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (District), was suspended for 30 days after she anonymously communicated to bidders on a District construction management contract her view that a conflict of interest existed in the selection process. Although we find the case a close one, in view of the substantial public importance of the subject on which Kirchmann spoke we conclude her right to speak was protected.

I

Factual and Procedural Background

A. Facts

Kirchmann became a permanent employee of the District in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.