Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Waters_v._Churchill> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 54 of
54
with 100 items per page.
- Waters_v._Churchill abstract "Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees in the workplace. By a 7–2 margin the justices held that it was not necessary to determine what a nurse at a public hospital had actually said while criticizing a supervisor's staffing practices to coworkers, as long as the hospital had formed a reasonable belief as to the content of her remarks and reasonably believed that they could be disruptive to its operations. They vacated a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in her favor, and ordered the case remanded to district court to determine instead if the nurse had been fired for the speech or other reasons, per the Court's ruling two decades prior in Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle.The case had first been brought by Cheryl Churchill, a nurse in the obstetrics ward at McDonough District Hospital, operated by the city of Macomb, Illinois. During a dinner break one night in early 1987, she had been talking with another nurse who was considering transferring to obstetrics. In that conversation she made statements critical of cross-training practices recently implemented by the hospital's nursing supervisor, Cindy Waters, and referred to personal issues between the two. Another nurse who overheard the conversation believed Churchill's comments about Waters had dissuaded her interlocutor from the transfer, and reported it to Waters. After an investigation in which Churchill alleged she was never asked about what she had said, she was fired.There were four separate opinions. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for a four-justice plurality that the government has a lower obligation to respect constitutional rights when it acts as employer rather than as the sovereign. Accordingly, in that situation it should not be required to meet a due process standard greater than the reasonableness of its own finding of fact. David Souter added a short concurring opinion qualifying the plurality, which he said was in fact a majority, with his insistence that in such cases the government must demonstrate that its understanding of what the employee said was not only a reasonable belief but a truthful one. Antonin Scalia concurred as well, but harshly criticized O'Connor's opinion. He read it as requiring a procedural handling of every possible adverse personnel action where First Amendment rights might be implicated, providing "more questions than answers". John Paul Stevens' dissent argued that the First Amendment required that the lower court determine exactly what Churchill had said before ruling on whether it was protected.Outside commentators have also been critical of the decision, since it might discourage whistleblowers. In addition to echoing Stevens' concerns, they have seen it as abandoning any concern for the truth, imposing a heavy burden on a plaintiff, relying on an overly narrow conception of the public's interest, and possibly discouraging people from entering public service. The decision resulted in a lower court changing its ruling in a high-profile case involving controversial academic Leonard Jeffries.".
- Waters_v._Churchill wikiPageExternalLink scholar_case?case=3521929082371837035.
- Waters_v._Churchill wikiPageExternalLink 661.
- Waters_v._Churchill wikiPageExternalLink 92-1450.ZO.html.
- Waters_v._Churchill wikiPageExternalLink argument.
- Waters_v._Churchill wikiPageExternalLink opinion.
- Waters_v._Churchill wikiPageID "31150099".
- Waters_v._Churchill wikiPageRevisionID "594684047".
- Waters_v._Churchill arguedate "--12-01".
- Waters_v._Churchill argueyear "1993".
- Waters_v._Churchill case "Waters v. Churchill".
- Waters_v._Churchill citation "172800.0".
- Waters_v._Churchill concurrence "Scalia".
- Waters_v._Churchill concurrence "Souter".
- Waters_v._Churchill cornell 92-1450.ZO.html.
- Waters_v._Churchill decidedate "--05-31".
- Waters_v._Churchill decideyear "1994".
- Waters_v._Churchill dissent "Stevens".
- Waters_v._Churchill fullname "Cynthia Waters, Kathleen Davis, Stephen Hopper, and McDonough District Hospital, an Illinois municipal corporation, v. Cheryl R. Churchill and Thomas Koch, M.D".
- Waters_v._Churchill hasPhotoCollection Waters_v._Churchill.
- Waters_v._Churchill holding "Where public employer has reasonable belief that speech by employee on matter of public concern could reasonably disrupt employer's operations, employee's First Amendment rights are not violated by adverse action and trial of fact is not necessary to determine actual content of speech. Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded.".
- Waters_v._Churchill joinconcurrence "Kennedy, Thomas".
- Waters_v._Churchill joindissent "Blackmun".
- Waters_v._Churchill joinplurality "Rehnquist, Souter, Ginsburg".
- Waters_v._Churchill justia 661.
- Waters_v._Churchill lawsapplied First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
- Waters_v._Churchill litigants "Waters v. Churchill".
- Waters_v._Churchill opinionannouncement opinion.
- Waters_v._Churchill oralargument argument.
- Waters_v._Churchill otherSource "Google Scholar".
- Waters_v._Churchill otherUrl scholar_case?case=3521929082371837035.
- Waters_v._Churchill plurality "O'Connor".
- Waters_v._Churchill prior "172800.0".
- Waters_v._Churchill scotus "1993".
- Waters_v._Churchill uspage "661".
- Waters_v._Churchill usvol "511".
- Waters_v._Churchill subject Category:1994_in_United_States_case_law.
- Waters_v._Churchill subject Category:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law.
- Waters_v._Churchill subject Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases.
- Waters_v._Churchill subject Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Rehnquist_Court.
- Waters_v._Churchill subject Category:United_States_public_employment_case_law.
- Waters_v._Churchill type Case.
- Waters_v._Churchill type LegalCase.
- Waters_v._Churchill type SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase.
- Waters_v._Churchill type UnitOfWork.
- Waters_v._Churchill type Situation.
- Waters_v._Churchill comment "Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees in the workplace.".
- Waters_v._Churchill label "Waters v. Churchill".
- Waters_v._Churchill sameAs m.0gh8z26.
- Waters_v._Churchill sameAs Q7974407.
- Waters_v._Churchill sameAs Q7974407.
- Waters_v._Churchill wasDerivedFrom Waters_v._Churchill?oldid=594684047.
- Waters_v._Churchill isPrimaryTopicOf Waters_v._Churchill.
- Waters_v._Churchill name "Cynthia Waters, Kathleen Davis, Stephen Hopper, and McDonough District Hospital, an Illinois municipal corporation, v. Cheryl R. Churchill and Thomas Koch, M.D".