Roberts v. Springfield Utility Board

Unlike speech involving matters of public concern, which is protected, “speech that deals with individual personnel disputes and grievances and that would be of no relevance to the public’s evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies is general not of public concern." Roberts v. Springfield Utility Board, 68 F.4th 470, 475 (9th Cir. 2023).

A former employee of a public utility appealed the decision of the district court’s granting of summary judgment for the public utility. During a workplace investigation into the employee’s violations of personnel policies, the utility notified the employee that they were prohibited from communicating with other employees about the issues being investigated. The former employee assigned error to the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment for the utility. On appeal, the employee argued that the utility violated his First Amendment right to free speech by limiting his speech to fellow employees. The utility “[as] a public employer may impose restraints on the job-related speech of public employees.” 68 F.4th 470, 474. Unlike speech involving matters of public concern, which is protected, “speech that deals with individual personnel disputes and grievances and that would be of no relevance to the public’s evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies is general not of public concern." 68 F.4th 470, 475. The Court held that the restricted speech related to a personnel dispute, not a matter of public concern, because the restriction applied only to matters of the investigation and not all communications with fellow employees. The Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the utility. Affirmed.