Rankin Et Al. v. Mcpherson

483 U.S. 378 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

McPherson (P) was appointed a deputy in the office of the Constable of Harris County, Texas. The Constable is an elected official who functions as a law enforcement officer. P, a black woman, was 19 years old and had attended college for a year, studying secretarial science. Her appointment was conditional for a 90-day probationary period. P was not a commissioned peace officer, did not wear a uniform, and was not authorized to make arrests or permitted to carry a gun. P's duties were purely clerical. Her work station was a desk at which there was no telephone, in a room to which the public did not have ready access. Her job was to type data from court papers into a computer that maintained an automated record of the status of civil process in the county. Her training consisted of two days of instruction in the operation of her computer terminal. P and some fellow employees heard on an office radio of an attempt to assassinate the President of the United States. P made comments where she hoped the next time it happens they get him. P's remark was reported to Constable Rankin (D). P readily admitted that she had made the statement, but stated that she didn't mean anything by it. D fired P. P brought suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The District Court held a hearing, and then granted summary judgment to d, holding that P's speech had been unprotected and that her discharge had therefore been proper. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for trial. The District Court held another hearing and ruled once again, this time from the bench, that the statements were not protected speech. The Court of Appeals reversed. P's remark had addressed a matter of public concern, requiring that society's interest in P's freedom of speech be weighed against her employer's interest in maintaining efficiency and discipline in the workplace. It concluded that the Government's interest did not outweigh the First Amendment interest in protecting P's speech. The Court of Appeals deemed P's 'duties . . . so utterly ministerial and her potential for undermining the office's mission so trivial' as to forbid her dismissal for expression of her political opinions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.