{"id":9562,"date":"2010-04-07T07:57:32","date_gmt":"2010-04-07T12:57:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=9562"},"modified":"2010-04-07T07:57:32","modified_gmt":"2010-04-07T12:57:32","slug":"intimate-associations-and-public-employment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2010\/04\/intimate-associations-and-public-employment\/","title":{"rendered":"Intimate Associations and Public Employment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/lawprofessors.typepad.com\/.a\/6a00d8341bfae553ef01347fb31cd8970c-pi\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/lawprofessors.typepad.com\/.a\/6a00d8341bfae553ef01347fb31cd8970c-120wi\" alt=\"Sexharass\" \/><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/lawprofessors.typepad.com\/.a\/6a00d8341bfae553ef01347fb31d3c970c-pi\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/lawprofessors.typepad.com\/.a\/6a00d8341bfae553ef01347fb31d3c970c-120wi\" alt=\"Firehelmet\" \/><\/a>In the past, I have written about my belief that <a href=\"http:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=675842\">public employees&#8217; rights to sexual privacy should enjoy the same protection afforded First Amendment rights<\/a> to speech and religion.<\/p>\n<p>So far, courts have been unreceptive to my claims that post-<em>Lawrence v. Texas<\/em>, the right to sexual privacy represents a heightened constitutional right which should lead only to employer interference with that right if the employer has a legitimate and substantial justification for so doing.\u00a0 The most recent example of courts&#8217; lack of receptivity to this argument comes from the Eleventh Circuit yesterday.\u00a0 <!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Ross Runkel provides the following summary of the 11th Circuit case of <a href=\"http:\/\/case.lawmemo.com\/11\/starling.pdf\"><em>Starling v. Board of County Commissioners<\/em> (11th Cir 04\/06\/2010)<\/a>, in which the court upheld a public employee&#8217;s demotion where the firefighter had been caught in an extramarital affair:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Starling sued the employer under 42 USC Section 1983 for violation of his First Amendment right to intimate association. The trial court granted the employer&#8217;s motion for summary judgment. The 11th Circuit affirmed.<\/p>\n<p>The court framed the question in the appeal as whether the employer violated a firefighter&#8217;s First Amendment right to intimate association by demoting him for an extramarital affair with one of his subordinates. The court concluded that the public employer&#8217;s interest in discouraging intimate association between supervisors and subordinates was so critical to the effective functioning of its fire department that it outweighed Starling&#8217;s interest in his relationship with the subordinate in the workplace. The court assumed arguendo that Starling&#8217;s right to intimate, extramarital association with a subordinate was fundamental, but did not address whether the First Amendment protected intimate, extramarital\u00a0 association.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I have many issues with not only the conclusion of the court, but also, perhaps more fundamentally, about the way the legal issue is framed (and I&#8217;m not sure if this is the fault of the plaintiff&#8217;s attorney or the court):<\/p>\n<p>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I do not think there is such a thing as a claim to intimate association under the First Amendment.\u00a0 I read <em>Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees<\/em> as finding an expressive association right under the First Amendment, and an intimate association right under the substantive due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u00a0 I am aware of <em>Stanley v. Georgia<\/em> and the right to have pornography in one&#8217;s home, but I submit that is not an intimate association case at all.<\/p>\n<p>2.\u00a0 Even if <em>Roberts<\/em>&#8216; location of the intimate association claim is properly in the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not think that a public employee plaintiff would get much constitutional protection under this precedent. Courts have been reluctant to give heightened protected to intimate association claims in the 25 years since the <em>Roberts<\/em> case was decided.<\/p>\n<p>3.\u00a0 I would have argued that the right here is one of sexual privacy under <em>Lawrence v. Texas<\/em>.\u00a0 I would have also argued that although it is unclear as to what the appropriate standard of scrutiny is in <em>Lawrence <\/em>cases, at the very least <a href=\"http:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=635721\">some form of heightened scrutiny is involved<\/a>.\u00a0 Indeed, I would compare <em>Lawrence<\/em> to the <em>Pickering<\/em> line of First Amendment cases and ask the court to conduct a balance of the employee&#8217;s sexual privacy interests against the rights of the public employer to run an efficient government workplace.\u00a0 Unless the employer had a legitimate and substantial justification for demoting\/firing the employee, I would find that sexual privacy interest had been violated by the public employer&#8217;s actions.\u00a0 I do not believe that <a href=\"http:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=627702\">all cases of sex between supervisors and subordinates automatically<\/a> meet this standard but we would need to inquire more into the nature of the relationship.<\/p>\n<p>4. What is striking about this case is that the court assumes <em>arguendo<\/em> that there is a <em>fundamental<\/em> right to intimate association, but that such fundamental right is outweighed by the efficiency interests of the employer.\u00a0 If indeed the intimate association right, wherever found, is a <em>fundamental<\/em> one, I would think the narrowly tailored means to meet a compelling state interest standard would be involved and a mere government interest in efficiency would hardly be enough to permit the demotion in these circumstances. Note also that the court affirms a summary judgment, holding that there is no genuine issues of material fact and the case can be decided as a matter of law.\u00a0 But my approach in #3 suggests many important disputed facts need to be determined by a fact-finder.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the past, I have written about my belief that public employees&#8217; rights to sexual privacy should enjoy the same protection afforded First Amendment rights to speech and religion. So far, courts have been unreceptive to my claims that post-Lawrence v. Texas, the right to sexual privacy represents a heightened constitutional right which should lead [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[98,33,49],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-civil-rights","category-labor-employment-law","category-privacy-rights","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9562\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}