Under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Connick and Pickering, public employees’ free-speech rights are more limited than that of the public generally. They can be disciplined even for otherwise protected speech that is petty, disruptive, or undermines the employer’s mission.

That’s true for free-speech, and it’s true for freedom-of-petition (the branch of the First Amendment that applies to lawsuits) as well.

As the Ninth Circuit explained in Lytle v. Wondrash (1999), public employees can be fired EITHER if their lawsuit was so petty that it didn’t involve a matter of public concern, OR if their lawsuit “adversely affected [an] interest of the [public
employer, such as] promoting efficient delivery of public services.”

The latter is true here (and perhaps the former as well). Pearson’s ridiculous and overreaching lawsuit has undermined confidence in the legal system and the fairness of Washington, D.C.’s administrative law judges in particular.

Thus, the unnamed D.C. official was not well-versed in the law when (s)he said, “I don’t think it’s appropriate not to reappoint someone just because they file a lawsuit. You can’t retaliate against someone for exercising their constitutional, First Amendment right to file a lawsuit to vindicate their rights.”

Yes, you can, when the lawsuit is like Pearson’s.

If I recall correctly, the suit by the girl’s family was a bit over-reaching, though, which may not have helped any.

Change “Mormon” with black or Muslim or Hispanic, and think about how this case comes out.