Bridges
Bridges v. Crandall
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Plaintiff-Appellant T.K. Bridges appeals the district court’s grant of summary judg *820 ment to Defendant-Appellee Steven Cam-bra. 1 He contends that the district court erred when it concluded 1) that Bridges’ speech did not pertain to a matter of public concern, and 2) that Bridges’ speech failed the Pickering balancing test. Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Assuming without deciding that Bridges’ speech related to a matter of public concern, and that Bridges was fired for his speech, 2 we conclude that such termination was permissible. Under Pickering , an employer is justified in firing an employee, based on that employee’s speech, if “the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees” outweighs the “interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (quoting Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568 (internal quotation marks omitted)).