Township of Millburn, New Jersey, et al. v. Michael J. Palardy, Jr.

In Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), this Court set out a two-step framework for addressing First Amendment retaliation claims by public employees. The first inquiry is whether the employee spoke “as a citizen on a matter of public concern”; and, if the answer to that question is yes, the second inquiry is whether the public employer had “an adequate justification for treating [the employee] differently from any other member of the general public.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006). In the decision below, the Third Circuit joined the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, in an acknowledged circuit conflict with the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, by holding that Connick’s first inquiry does not apply to a retaliation claim based on membership in a public sector union. Then the Third Circuit—in a decision that breaks with every other court of appeals to have considered the question—rendered Connick’s second inquiry inapplicable to unionassociation claims as well, making the entire Connick framework categorically inapplicable to retaliation claims based on union membership. The question presented is whether, and how, this Court’s two-step framework for evaluating First Amendment retaliation claims by public employees applies to a claim alleging retaliation based on an employee’s association with a public sector union.