Ninth Circuit Says Police Chief's Private Texts Aren't Protected Speech

The Ninth Circuit today rejected a First Amendment retaliation claim by a police chief who was forced to resign after sending private texts with a forwarded racist image. The court examined the language, form, and context of the texts and concluded that they did not constitute a matter of public concern under Pickering v. Board of Education.

The case, Adams v. County of Sacramento, arose when Kate Adams, who worked in the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, sent private texts to colleagues that included forwarded racist pics. (Adams's texts seem to suggest that she disapproved of the forwarded pics.) Years later--after Adams was appointed as City of Rancho Cordova Police Chief and after the texts came out in the course of an EEO investigation involving one of the recipients--a county attorney told her that she'd have to resign or face an investigation that would fuel a "media circus" over the texts. Adams resigned, then sued, arguing that her forced resignation violated the First Amendment, among other things.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that Adams's speech wasn't protected public-employee speech under Pickering, and that she therefore had no First Amendment claim against her forced resignation. The court looked at the language, form, and context of the texts to concluded that they did not constitute a matter of public concern.

Judge Callahan dissented, arguing that this was an unusual case in that "Adams's speech occurred outside of work, was totally unrelated to her job, and should not have had any impact on her employment," and that "Adams should have the chance to hold the County accountable for its harsh reaction to her speech . . . ."