Page:Gruber v. Bruce.pdf/10

 ;A. First Amendment Retaliation “[T]he Free Speech Clause applies at public universities” and “[t]hus, the state may not act as though professors or students ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the [university] gate.’”, 992 F.3d 492, 503 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting , 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969)). Nevertheless, “free-speech rules apply differently when the government is doing the speaking [and] that remains true even when a government employee is doing the talking.” at 503–04.

The basic free-speech rules for public employees were laid out by the Supreme Court in, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968), , 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977), and , 461 U.S. 138, 147–50 (1983). In, the Court established a two-part test, requiring the employee to show first that his or her speech addressed “matters of public concern,” and second that his or her interest “in commenting upon matters of public concern” outweighed “the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” , 391 U.S. at 568.

added a causation element to pursuant to which the employee must show that his or her constitutionally-protected conduct was a “substantial” or “motivating” factor in the imposition of discipline. , 429 U.S. at 287. If that showing is made, the employer can still escape liability if it shows “by a preponderance of the evidence that [it] would have reached the same decision … even in the absence of the [plaintiff’s] protected conduct.”

Finally, in, the Court refined the test by holding that “[w]hen employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their offices, without