Waters v. Churchill

511 U.S. 661 (1994)

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

P has a conversation with Melanie Perkins-Graham. P and Perkins-Graham were nurses working at McDonough District Hospital. The conversation took place at work during a dinner break. Waters (D) heard about it and fired P. P talked with Perkins about how bad things are in [obstetrics] in general.' P 'was knocking the department' and that 'in general P was saying what a bad place [obstetrics] is to work.' When questioned by management Perkins-Graham told them that P 'had indeed said unkind and inappropriate negative things about D.' P also allegedly told Perkins-Graham 'that just in general things were not good in OB and hospital administration was responsible.' P's version of the conversation is different. P had been concerned about the hospital's 'cross-training' policy, under which nurses from one department could work in another when their usual location was overstaffed. P believed this policy threatened patient care because it was designed not to train nurses but to cover staff shortages, and she had complained about this to D. P denies that she said some of what Ballew and Perkins-Graham allege she said. She does admit she criticized Davis, saying her staffing policies threatened to 'ruin' the hospital because they ''seemed to be impeding nursing care.'' Koch's and Welty's recollections of the conversation match P's. P was discharged and filed an internal grievance. D rejected Ps grievance. P then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the firing violated her First Amendment rights because her speech was protected under Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708, 103 S.Ct. 1684 (1983). D was granted summary judgment. Neither version of the conversation was protected under Connick because the speech was not on a matter of public concern, and even if it was on a matter of public concern, its potential for disruption nonetheless stripped it of First Amendment protection. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. P's speech, viewed in the light most favorable to her, was protected speech under the Connick test: It was on a matter of public concern -- 'the hospital's [alleged] violation of state nursing regulations as well as the quality and level of nursing care it provides its patients,' -- and it was not disruptive. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.