USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 1 of 20
[PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13894
____________________
RUBY GREEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HOWARD FINKELSTEIN,
individually, in his capacity as Public Defender for Broward
County,
THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR BROWARD
COUNTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 2 of 20
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13894
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:20-cv-62160-BB
____________________
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
BRASHER, Circuit Judge:
This appeal requires us to consider whether the First
Amendment protects a public employee’s statements attacking her
supervisor during a political campaign to replace him. Ruby Green
argues that former Broward County Public Defender Howard
Finkelstein fired her from her position as a public defender in violation of her First Amendment rights. Finkelstein fired Green after
she made public comments during her campaign to replace Finkelstein, who was not seeking reelection. Specifically, Green claimed
on a political podcast that Finkelstein played golf rather than work,
did not hire racial minorities or support black social justice organizations, and had used illegal drugs while practicing law earlier in
his career. Based on these comments, Finkelstein terminated
Green’s employment after the primary election, which Green had
lost to another employee of the office.
The district court granted summary judgment to Finkelstein. It concluded that many of Green’s statements about Finkelstein were eligible for First Amendment protection because they
were made on matters of public concern. But, balancing Green’s
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 3 of 20
21-13894 Opinion of the Court 3
interests against her employer’s interests, the district court concluded that her interest in making these statements did not outweigh the government’s interest in the effective management of
the public defender’s office.
We have yet to consider whether and how a public employee’s political campaign to replace her supervisor impacts her
interest in criticizing that supervisor. Although we recognize that
an employee seeking public office has a strong interest in criticizing
the elected official currently holding that position, we believe the
employer’s interest in effective management outweighs the employee’s interest when the employee’s criticisms are likely to frustrate the employer’s mission. Because we conclude that Green’s
criticisms of Finkelstein fit this mold, we conclude that her termination cannot support a claim for retaliation in violation of the First
Amendment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court.
I.
During his fourth term as Broward County Public Defender,
Howard Finkelstein announced that he was retiring and would not
be running for reelection in the November 2020 primary. Ruby
Green, a Broward County Assistant Public Defender, later announced her candidacy to replace him. Before Green declared her
candidacy, Gordon Weekes, who served as one of three executive
chiefs at the office, entered the race and received Finkelstein’s endorsement. Finkelstein is white; both Green and Weekes are black.
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 4 of 20
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13894
Office policy permitted Green and Weekes to run for office
while remaining employed so long as they “follow[ed] campaign
laws, submit[ted] vacation requests for any campaigning during
working hours, and refrain[ed] from using office computers or supplies for any campaign purpose.” Finkelstein also emailed Green
and Weekes, reiterating this campaign policy, and explaining that
their campaigns “have the potential of pulling the office apart and
distracting our employees from our very important mission.”
Finkelstein stressed that he “worked too hard to de-politicize [the]
office to allow it to devolve into chaos before [he] retires” and that
he trusted both Green and Weekes would “conduct [themselves]
professionally” during the campaign.
As part of her campaign, Green appeared as a guest on a publicly disseminated podcast that discusses political issues in South
Florida. On the podcast, she discussed her candidacy as well as
what she believed to be issues with how Finkelstein either ran the
office or conducted himself as public defender. Green’s statements
on the podcast fall broadly into three categories: (1) Finkelstein’s
present performance as a lawyer or supervisor; (2) Finkelstein’s hiring of minority employees and attitudes towards social justice issues; and (3) Finkelstein’s alleged drug use earlier in his career.
As for the first category, Green claimed Finkelstein told her
“not to go to the courtroom, not to train [the Office’s] attorneys.”
She claimed that Finkelstein “c[ame] to work maybe once or twice
a week for maybe an hour or two” and did not “know people’s
names.” Additionally, Green claimed that Finkelstein “hasn’t had
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 5 of 20
21-13894 Opinion of the Court 5
any cases. Hasn’t had any . . . jail visits . . . any jail calls, [or] anything like that.” Instead, she told the host, Finkelstein “just get[s]
to go home and play golf.” Finally, she stated that Finkelstein
treated his employees “like trash.”
As for the second category of statements, Green made several comments related to race and Finkelstein’s treatment of racial
issues. Green implied that Finkelstein did “not want to hire people
who look . . . like the people that are filling the boxes.” Further, she
claimed that Finkelstein “t[old] the entire office that [the employees] can’t march in solidarity with Black Lives Matter.” Finally,
Green claimed that Finkelstein refused to “donate or come to an
event that was, you know, of blackness, . . . because . . . he was mad
that some of the people in that organization called him racist.”
Finally, as for the third category, Green implied that Finkelstein had used drugs earlier in his career. Comparing herself to
Finkelstein, Green said, “[i]f we were drug addicts and we used to
come to court with cocaine on their noses, you know, would we
be able to be in a position that he would be able to be in?”
When he learned about the podcast, Finkelstein determined
that Green made a series of statements that were “untruthful, personally and professionally offensive, and which had the ability to
undermine and inhibit the Office relations and ability of the Office
to accomplish its Mission.” Finkelstein told Renee Dadowski, a supervisor in the office, and Weekes that Green had “attacked [him]
professionally and personally, the office and fellow pds,” and that
Green’s statements “ha[d] the ability to inhibit the ability to do [his]
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 6 of 20
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13894
job[].” Finally, he explained that he took specific offense because
Green “lied and said [the Office] wouldn’t allow people in the office
to be involved with marching for [Black Lives Matter].”
Five days later, Finkelstein emailed Dadowski and Weekes
outlining his plan to terminate Green. In that email, he cited
Green’s “disrespect for [him] personally and for the office and its
lawyers.” He also stated that Green’s comments “[i]nhibit[] [the Office in its] ability to do [its] job,” and that the comments “bring[]
disrepute down on [the office] and [its] clients.” Finally, Finkelstein
stated that Green’s “lack of truthfulness should prevent her from
being a lawyer [a]s well but that is another issue for others[.]”
A few days later, on August 19, 2020, the morning after
Green lost the primary election, Finkelstein terminated Green.
That same day, Finkelstein told the South Florida Sun Sentinel that
Green was terminated because of her “unprofessional” and
“[un]truthful” statements on the podcast.
Green sued Finkelstein both in his personal and official capacity in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
During their respective depositions, both Finkelstein and Green
discussed Green’s statements on the podcast and her termination
at length. Regarding her comments about Finkelstein’s work
schedule, Green testified she did not actually know what Finkelstein did outside of work or his work hours. Regarding Finkelstein’s
rationale for terminating Green, he testified that he believed her
comments “created a split in the office” based on race that he believed could cause lawyers in the office to avoid working with and
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 7 of 20
21-13894 Opinion of the Court 7
consulting the leadership of the office. Ultimately, he believed
keeping Green on board after her comments would be like “a disease in the office.” And as for the personal attacks, Finkelstein explained that there was “no way [he] could have [Green] be on [his]
staff working for [him] because of the contempt [and] hatred” he
believed she had for him after her statements, which included
“call[ing him] an old racist that doesn’t care.”
After discovery, the parties filed their summary judgment
motions. Finkelstein moved for summary judgment of the entire
action, and Green filed a partial motion for summary judgment
with respect to liability only. The district court concluded that
three of Green’s eight statements involved matters of public concern. But it concluded that the government’s interest in the efficient administration of the office outweighed Green’s interest in
making the statements. Accordingly, the court denied Green’s motion and granted Finkelstein’s.
Green timely appealed.
II.
We review de novo the resolution of cross-motions for summary judgment. Am. Bankers Ins. Grp. v. United States, 408 F.3d 1328,
1331 (11th Cir. 2005). We “apply[] the same legal standards as those
that control the district court.” Jackson v. State of Ala. State Tenure
Comm’n, 405 F.3d 1276, 1289 (11th Cir. 2005). To succeed on a summary judgment motion, the movant must show he is entitled to
prevail on questions of law, and “that there are no genuine issues
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 8 of 20
8 Opinion of the Court 21-13894
of material fact pertinent to those questions of law.” Rich v. Dollar,
841 F.2d 1558, 1562 (11th Cir. 1988).
III.
A citizen does not surrender her First Amendment rights by
accepting a position as a public employee, but a public employee’s
right to speak as a private citizen is not absolute. Determining
whether the First Amendment protects the speech of a public employee requires “a careful balance ‘between the interests of the
[employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public
concern and the interest of . . . an employer[] in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.’”
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228, 231 (2014) (first alteration in original)
(quoting Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty.,
391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)).
Applying this test, we have held that, to prevail on a First
Amendment claim of unlawful retaliation, an employee must make
three showings. See Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562, 1565–
66 (11th Cir. 1989). First, the employee must show that the speech
was made as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Id. Second, the
employee’s free speech interest must outweigh the employer’s interest in effective and efficient fulfillment of its responsibilities. Id.
And third, the speech must have played a substantial part in the
adverse employment action. Id. The first two inquiries are questions of law for the court. See Moss v. City of Pembroke Pines,
782 F.3d
613, 617-18 (11th Cir. 2015).
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 9 of 20
21-13894 Opinion of the Court 9
Here, it is undisputed that Finkelstein fired Green because
of her speech. But the parties dispute which of Green’s statements,
if any, involved matters of public concern and whether Green’s interest in making those statements outweighed Finkelstein’s interest in promoting the effective fulfillment of the public defender’s
responsibilities.
A.
Turning to the first disputed issue, we must determine
which of Green’s statements, if any, are eligible for First Amendment protection. An employee’s speech is protected only when
made as a citizen and “when it can ‘be fairly considered as relating
to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,’ or when it ‘is a subject of legitimate news interest.’” Snyder v.
Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 453 (2011) (citations omitted). To determine
whether speech is made as a citizen on a matter of public concern,
we must examine “the content, form, and context of a given statement.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147–48 (1983).
As an initial matter, there is no dispute that Green was
speaking as a citizen, not an employee, when she was critical of
Finkelstein and the office. When an employee makes “statements
pursuant to [her] official duties,” the First Amendment “does not
insulate [her] communications from employer discipline.” Battle v.
Bd. of Regents for Ga., 468 F.3d 755, 760 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation
omitted) (quoting Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006)). But
“the mere fact that a citizen’s speech concerns information acquired by virtue of [her] public employment does not transform
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 10 of 20
10 Opinion of the Court 21-13894
that speech into employee—rather than citizen—speech.” Lane,
573 U.S. at 240. Indeed, “speech by public employees on subject
matter related to their employment holds special value [to the public] precisely because those employees gain knowledge of matters
of public concern through their employment.” Id. Here, Green appeared on the podcast in her personal capacity, as a candidate for
public office, and not as a representative of the public defender’s
office or a lawyer representing a client. She was, therefore, speaking as a citizen, not a public employee, when she criticized Finkelstein.
We now turn to the content, form, and context of Green’s
statements to determine whether they can be “fairly considered as
relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the
community,” or “a subject of legitimate news interest.” Snyder, 562
U.S. at 453. Finkelstein argues that most of Green’s statements
were “personal concerns of her own employment” and not on matters of public concern. For its part, the district court held that three
statements were directed to matters of public concern: that Finkelstein (1) would not hire minority employees; (2) would not allow
employees of the office to march in support of the Black Lives Matter movement; and (3) did not support black organizations. But the
district court concluded that five of Green’s statements are not on
matters of public concern: (1) regarding the office not allowing her
to “go to the courtroom” and “train attorneys”; (2) that Finkelstein
treated employees like “trash”; (3) criticizing Finkelstein’s work
schedule; (4) suggesting Finkelstein’s prior drug use, and (5) implying that Finkelstein was not “in the trenches.”
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 11 of 20
21-13894 Opinion of the Court 11
We think all of Green’s statements were sufficiently directed
to matters of public concern to warrant protection under the First
Amendment. Although the content of some of Green’s statements
may be akin to an employee grievance when read in isolation, we
cannot ignore that these statements were made in the form of a
publicly disseminated political podcast in the context of a campaign
for elected office. In light of this form and context, we ultimately
conclude that Green’s statements were made on matters of public
concern.
Starting with content, we have little trouble concluding that
the content of at least some of these statements suggests they are
on matters of public concern. Like the district court, we recognize
that Green’s allegations that Finkelstein had racially discriminatory
hiring practices and forbade employees from participating in racerelated protests raise matters of public concern. Our law recognizes
that public employers “must act in accordance with a ‘core purpose
of the Fourteenth Amendment’ which is to ‘do away with all governmentally imposed discriminations based on race.’” Wygant v.
Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 277 (1986) (quoting Palmore v. Sidoti,
466 U.S. 429, 432 (1984)). See also Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e17 (as amended); Unlawful
Employment Practices, Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a) (2023). Likewise,
the Supreme Court has held that public employers cannot condition employment on an employee’s political affiliation. Elrod v.
Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976); Branti v. Finkel,
445 U.S. 507 (1980); see
also Terry v. Cook, 866 F.2d 373, 377 (11th Cir. 1989). Green’s allega-
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 12 of 20
12 Opinion of the Court 21-13894
tions that Finkelstein was violating these constitutional and statutory commands—not only as to herself, but with respect to other
members of the office—resemble allegations “[e]xposing governmental . . . misconduct,” which “is a matter of considerable significance” under the First Amendment. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 425.
On the other hand, we agree with Finkelstein that the content of many of Green’s other statements is more personal in nature. In particular, Finkelstein’s supposed instructions to Green not
to train junior public defenders and her allegation that he treated
office employees “like trash” are akin to private employee grievances. Although these statements have some public import because Green was a government employee complaining about her
elected boss, “a public employee may not transform a personal
grievance into a matter of public concern by invoking a supposed
popular interest in the way public institutions are run.” Ferrara v.
Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1516 (11th Cir. 1986).
Nonetheless, despite the content of these statements, we believe their form and context establish that they addressed matters
of public concern and legitimate news interest. Green made these
statements on a political podcast (form) as a candidate campaigning
for public office (context). Even if the content of some of her statements are not newsworthy when read in isolation, the form and
context of these statements establish that they are eligible for First
Amendment protection.
Turning to the form of these statements, we cannot overlook that Green made these allegations during an interview on a
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 13 of 20
21-13894 Opinion of the Court 13
news and politics podcast. Our First Amendment retaliation precedents have not often delineated what differentiates the form of a
public employee’s speech from its context. See, e.g., Lane, 573 U.S. at
241 (simultaneously analyzing the form and context of the speech).
But the most heavily emphasized factor when considering the form
of a public employee’s speech has been whether, and how, the
speech was disseminated to the public. See Abdur-Rahman v. Walker,
567 F.3d 1278, 1285 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[P]ublic employees ‘retain
some possibility of” constitutional protection when they “make
public statements . . . .” (quoting Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 423–24)). Indeed, publicly disseminated speech lies at the very core of the right
to openly criticize one’s employer that the Supreme Court recognized in Pickering.
Although no direct analog exists in our precedents, we see
no reason why statements made during an interview on a publicly
disseminated podcast would not be afforded First Amendment protection. See Lane, 573 U.S. at 240 (“The critical question . . . is
whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of
the employee’s duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties”). Appearing on a podcast is the modern-day equivalent of the
letter-to-the-editor that the Supreme Court analyzed in Pickering.
Compare Audio and Podcasting Fact Sheet, Pew Research Center
(June 15, 2023) (showing the percentage of podcast listeners increasing by more than 100% since 2008) 1 with Newspapers Fact
1 https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/audio-and-podcasting/ [https://perma.cc/F4RG-4VU4].
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 14 of 20
14 Opinion of the Court 21-13894
Sheet, Pew Research Center (June 29, 2021) (showing sharp declines in newspaper readership). 2 Green’s speech is comparable to
cases in which a public employee “seek[s] to inform the public that
[a government] office was not discharging its governmental responsibilities,” or where the employee “seek[s] to bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust on the part
of [a public official].” Connick, 461 U.S. at 148. See, e.g., Watters v.
City of Philadelphia, 55 F.3d 886, 892-93 (3d Cir. 1995) (statements
made to newspaper reporter, by director of police department’s
employee assistance program, about lack of formal written policies
was speech on a matter of public concern). Accordingly, the form
of Green’s speech—an interview on a publicly disseminated news
and politics podcast—supports a conclusion that her statements involve matters of public concern.
Lastly and perhaps most importantly, the context of Green’s
statements—a campaign for elected office in which she was a candidate—underscores that her statements were of legitimate news
interest. Under the context factor, we consider the constitutional
protections afforded to the specific category of speech at issue. For
instance, in Lane, the Supreme Court emphasized that the statements at issue were made in the context of a judicial proceeding,
which may form the basis for government action and “affect[] the
rights and liberties of others.” 573 U.S. at 238 (quoting United States
v. Alvarez, 132 S.Ct. 2537, 2546 (2012) (plurality opinion)). Likewise,
2 https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers/
[https://perma.cc/7DZ6-3RKP].
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 15 of 20
21-13894 Opinion of the Court 15
in O'Laughlin v. Palm Beach County, when examining the context of
statements made during a union election, we recognized that
“air[ing one’s] grievances in the run-up to [an] election,” “arguably
strengthens” an employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim. 30
F.4th 1045, 1052–53 (11th Cir. 2022). We reached this conclusion
because “campaign-related speech exists at the very core of the
First Amendment.” Id. at 1053 (citing McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 346-47 (1995)).
Our reasoning in O’Laughlin applies equally here. Whatever
their specific content, it is undisputed that Green made these statements to the public in the context of a campaign for elected office
in which she was a candidate. And “the right of candidates for political office to make their case to the American people” is among
“the most fundamental First Amendment activities.” Fed. Election
Comm’n v. Cruz, 142 S.Ct. 1638, 1654 (2022). It is difficult to imagine
a context with a more direct implication for the public interest. Political speech, especially a candidate’s statements on the campaign
trail, “‘is the essence of self-government.’” Snyder, 562 U.S. at 452
(quoting Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74–75 (1964)). These
“expressive activities constituted the type of ‘classically political
speech’ lying at the ‘core of the First Amendment.’” Carter v. City of
Melbourne, 731 F.3d 1161, 1169 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Boos v.
Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318 (1988)). To deny a candidate’s campaign-related statements any First Amendment protection would give
public employers free rein to censor an employee’s political speech.
But the Supreme Court has “never allowed the government to pro-
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 16 of 20
16 Opinion of the Court 21-13894
hibit candidates from communicating relevant information to voters during an election.” Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536
U.S. 765, 782 (2002). We therefore decline Finkelstein’s invitation
to declare most of Green’s campaign-related interview to be unprotected speech.
In short, we believe all of Green’s statements on the podcast
were made as a citizen on matters of public concern. The content
of several of her statements—that the office’s hiring practices were
racially discriminatory, for example—were clearly newsworthy. As
for other statements, we believe the context and form—made by a
candidate for elected office on a political podcast disseminated to
the public during a campaign—make them newsworthy and addressed to matters of public concern.
B.
Of course, our conclusion that Green’s statements are eligible for First Amendment protection says nothing about the government’s countervailing interest in terminating her. As both we
and the Supreme Court have recognized, governments have important interests that may justify precluding a public employee
from campaigning or electioneering. See United Pub. Workers of Am.
(C.I.O.) v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 96 (1947) (upholding the Hatch Act,
5 U.S.C. § 7323, which restricts federal employees from participating in political campaigns); see also Randall v. Scott,
610 F.3d 701, 714
(11th Cir. 2010) (reasoning that running against a sitting district attorney would qualify as a “good legal reason to discharge” a public
employee “due to the state’s interest in office loyalty”). To that
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 17 of 20
21-13894 Opinion of the Court 17
end, Pickering requires us to balance “the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of . . . an employer[] in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”
Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568. The key question is “whether the relevant
government entity had an adequate justification for treating the
employee differently from any other member of the general public.” Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418.
Finkelstein argues that Green’s termination was justified because her statements were likely to impede the functioning of the
public defender’s office. He testified that he believed keeping
Green on board after her comments would be like “a disease in the
office.” Green responds that there are genuine issues of material
fact that preclude summary judgment. But we agree with Finkelstein. We conclude that the government’s interests outweigh
Green’s for three reasons.
First, some of Green’s statements amount to baseless, unfounded, or demonstrably false attacks on Finkelstein and should
be afforded little—if any—weight under Pickering. We have held
that the “First Amendment does not require a public employer to
tolerate an embarrassing, vulgar, vituperative, ad hominem attack,
simply because the employee recently has waved a political sign.”
Morris v. Crow, 117 F.3d 449, 458 (11th Cir. 1997). Likewise, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by” a public employee can “furnish the
basis for his dismissal from public employment.” Pickering, 391 U.S.
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 18 of 20
18 Opinion of the Court 21-13894
at 574. See also Lane, 573 U.S. at 238 (emphasizing that “[t]ruthful
testimony under oath by a public employee outside the scope of
his ordinary job duties is” protected by the First Amendment (emphasis added)).
It is undisputed that several of Green’s statements are false
or, at the very least, baseless. Green testified during her deposition
that she did not know what Finkelstein did outside of work (i.e.,
she was not aware if he was playing golf as she claimed), and her
claims about his hours were based on how often she would personally see him at the office. The same can be said of Finkelstein’s supposedly discriminatory hiring practices. Green has not presented
any evidence that that Finkelstein did “not want to hire people who
look . . . like the people that are filling the boxes.” In fact, the record
reflects that a portion of Finkelstein’s selected office leadership was
black and Finkelstein, as public defender since 2004, hired a number of minority attorneys—including Green herself. Although the
hiring and promotion of minority attorneys does not necessarily
establish that the office did not engage in any discriminatory hiring
practices, we see little value in making a thoughtless charge of racism against one’s supervisor.
Second, as a lawyer, Green held a position of trust in the office, and she lost that trust when she so harshly criticized the office’s management. We have recognized that a “government employer’s interest in staffing its offices with persons the employer
fully trusts is given great weight when the pertinent employee
helps make policy, handles confidential information or must speak
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 19 of 20
21-13894 Opinion of the Court 19
or act—for others to see—on the employer’s behalf.” Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097, 1103–04 (11th Cir. 1997). Put another way, the
“First Amendment does not require that an official . . . nourish the
viper in the nest.” Carver v. Dennis, 104 F.3d 847, 853 (6th Cir. 1997).
As an attorney, Green was in a unique position in that she acted as
both a representative of her client and the public defender’s office
itself. An attorney’s perceived disloyalty provides “good legal reason to discharge” her “due to the [government’s] interest in office
loyalty.” Randall, 610 F.3d at 714. Because of Green’s position as an
attorney, Finkelstein’s contention that he had lost trust in Green
because of her comments is an especially substantial justification
for terminating her.
Third, there is ample evidence in the record that Finkelstein
terminated Green due to his concerns over office harmony. Finkelstein’s emails to his colleagues rely on this rationale. Finkelstein
also testified that Green’s statements “created a split in the office”
based on race. When an employer determines that an employee’s
speech has a “detrimental impact on close working relationships or
destroys harmony among coworkers,” we must give “‘a wide degree of deference to the employer’s judgment.’” Morales v. Stierheim, 848 F.2d 1145, 1149 (11th Cir. 1988) (quoting Connick, 461 U.S.
at 151–52). Affording that deference, Finkelstein’s position strikes
us as reasonable: publicly accusing a supervisor of being a lazy, racist, former drug addict is likely to affect office harmony.
For her part, Green argues that Finkelstein’s justification is
insufficient because he could not identify any specific disruption
USCA11 Case: 21-13894 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 20 of 20
20 Opinion of the Court 21-13894
that her statements caused. We disagree. Both we and the Supreme
Court “have given substantial weight to government employers’
reasonable predictions of disruption, even when the speech involved
is on a matter of public concern.” Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661,
673 (1994) (emphasis added). It is not necessary “for an employer
to allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the
office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 152. The obvious disruptive potential of Green’s statements, the fact that Finkelstein’s decision to terminate Green was based on these potential disruptions,
and the deference our precedents require, all support a conclusion
that the government’s interests outweigh Green’s.
In short, we cannot say that Green’s interest in making these
statements outweighs the government’s interest “in promoting the
efficiency of the public services [the office] performs through its
employees.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568. Because the undisputed facts
warrant a conclusion that the government’s interest in terminating
Green outweighed her interest in making the statements for which
she was terminated, the district court did not err in denying
Green’s motion for summary judgment and granting Finkelstein’s.
IV.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
