I Can No Longer Support This Administration . .

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

98. That's a good start...

There's a lot more (and less) to this story than it appears.

Among the issues here is whether an employer can discipline its employee for information revealed in court. If in my testimony, I reveal that the program I'm running is rife with incompetence, can my employer use that as a basis for disciplining me? Or is that "protected speech"?

The example being used in the court is whether a police office, testifying about the conduct of an investigation, can be disciplined if it turns out that the investigation was flawed. The key here is that for the police officer, testifying is part of his/her job and so it's not protected -- the officer should be evaluated on the basis of his/her performance in court as a witness.

Franks' argument is that testifying in court is NOT part of his job, and he was only testifying because he received a federal subpoena. The ACLU brief argues that all persons should be considered "individuals" and not "employees" for the purpose of protecting their testimony -- which would be the broadest protection possible. The Obama DOJ is arguing that the court shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater -- that the government should be allowed some degree of latitude to discipline employees based on their performance in court.

The "less to this story" part, includes the fact that there were budget cuts at the college and Franks even agreed that he (along with several other employees who were considered "probationary&quot should be terminated. When nearly all of the other employees were not terminated -- turns out they weren't probationary -- Franks sued, alleging it was retaliation.

Bear in mind that in Franks' own statements, he never documents that the college ever threatened him or told him not to testify.