Background
Dr. Mark Stanalajczo, an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan School of Dentistry, filed a lawsuit alleging First Amendment retaliation after being terminated. The termination followed his complaints about mandatory personal protective equipment during the summer of two thousand twenty-two, which he claimed caused overheating. He sent emails to the entire clinic community, filed a complaint with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and spoke at a town hall meeting. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that his speech was not protected.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the three-part test for public employee speech, requiring the speech to address a matter of public concern, be made as a private citizen, and survive a balancing test. The court focused on the first element, determining that the speech did not address a matter of public concern. The court found that the MiOSHA complaint and the town hall remarks focused on the plaintiff’s personal interest in workplace conditions and the comfort of clinic workers rather than issues of political or social concern to the community. The court noted that while the speech mentioned patients, the primary point was employee health and safety, not patient endangerment. The court affirmed the judgment on this ground without deciding whether the speech was made pursuant to official duties.
Speech involves a matter of public concern when it relates to issues of political, social, or other concern to the community and is of public import.
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 148 (1983)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that internal employee grievances regarding working conditions, even when raised in public forums or to safety agencies, generally do not qualify as matters of public concern protected by the First Amendment.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download