Quantcast
Home / Case Digests / 03-3257 McElroy v. Lopac, et al.

03-3257 McElroy v. Lopac, et al.

“’[I]nquiries’ into lay-in pay were not protected speech as would be necessary to satisfy a retaliation claim’s requirement of constitutionally protected activity. As in the publicemployee context, McElroy’s questions concerning Lopac’s ‘personal policies’ about lay-in pay must relate to a public concern and not just a personal matter to receive First Amendment protection. See Sasnett ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*