FINKELSTEIN 2, GREEN 0

We have yet to consider whether and how a public employee’s political campaign to replace her supervisor impacts her
interest in criticizing that supervisor. Although we recognize that
an employee seeking public office has a strong interest in criticizing
the elected official currently holding that position, we believe the
employer’s interest in effective management outweighs the employee’s interest when the employee’s criticisms are likely to frustrate the employer’s mission. Because we conclude that Green’s
criticisms of Finkelstein fit this mold, we conclude that her termination cannot support a claim for retaliation in violation of the First
Amendment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court

GREEN V. FINKELSTEIN (7/17/23)

53 thoughts on “FINKELSTEIN 2, GREEN 0”

    1. 1

      1

      Incredibly stupid opinion, not to mention poorly written. What kind of idiots are writing this stuff ?

    2. 1

      0

      Now does Ruby get to add all of those attorney fees she owes to her huge $340,000 student loan debt?

      Odd that she not only was approved for a $40,000 car loan with that much debt, but that she saw fit to EVEN GET a $40k car when she shoulda got herself a Kia!

      1. 2

        0

        Effective Management in the Public Defender’s Office under Howard Finkelstein couldn’t possibly apply here. Finkelstein and his twisted mommy figure Kuethan did more to ruin the office than they ever did anything towards improving it. Both had horrible management skills. Its the main reason why so many talented veteran trial lawyers quit the office almost as soon as Finkelstein came aboard. Finkelstein couldn’t manage his way out of a cardboard box.

      1. 2

        1

        He should have never hired her to begin with but so many attorneys had quit he was desperate to fill the spots. She has a big mouth and not much else. Now she’s Pryor’s problem.

    1. 15

      1

      She had every right to call Finkelstein out and had the courage to take the consequences. She got a better job with more pay and slapped Finkelstein in the process. God knows he needed it. He had screwed up the PD so badly and everybody knew it. She was quietly applauded by most people in the office. We need more like her that aren’t afraid to confront these incompetent egomaniacs !

      1. 2

        0

        Hmm, but is it worth ALL those legal fees she now owes for having her butt kicked?

        And how is it courageous to: mouth off your employer, and then file a frivolous lawsuit?

  1. 0

    0

    Look over here – Look over there – just don’t keep your eye on the ball
    Where are my golf clubs ?

    1. 2

      0

      If maybe Howard had been paying as much attention to the management of the office than he was to his golf game, which by the way is equally as bad as his management of the PD, he wouldn’t have made himself the subject of such criticism to begin with. Ever thought of it that way ?
      By his reaction, her criticism obviously struck s soft spot on his poor performance within the office. She wasn’t the only one complaining.

      1. 1

        1

        I hope the Democrats can come up with a candidate that’s not a hundred years old and half dead. RFK must have Parkinson’s and his voice sounds like he’s under water drowning.

  2. 2

    0

    Finkelstein had nothing to lose. He was on his way out and the whole office knew how fragile his ego was. A bigger man would have just taken it in stride and let it go.

  3. 4

    1

    Not a fan of Ruby and I kinda like Finkelstein but this opinion is absolute bullshit. “The government’s interest of running a smooth public defender’s office outweighs the 1st amendment and freedom of speech”??? Seriously who even writes like that? That’s ridiculous. The appellate court basically shat on free speech.

    1. 1

      1

      Ruby has a big mouth puss on her which is certainly something Howard can identify with. Lol Both of them are phony loudmouthed blowhards with very little talent so they blow their own horns all over the place like anybody wants to hear it. Howard’s show is like a cartoon for the mentally challenged and I wouldn’t hire that Ruby screwball to clean my toilets. Who gives a crap about either one of them.

    2. 2

      0

      The 4th has been doing just that and other USCA like the 5th 6th & 14th, for decades, especially striking those rights down by PCA those bad opinions. That way they seal them in without creating any grounds for appeal. BUTT that’s another even bigger problem.

  4. 4

    1

    Isn’t the pd office a place of employment first. So I can go tell my supervisor to F off and the 1st amendment protects me from being fired.
    Wow how woke are you people
    It’s very simple it’s called respect and not disrespect protected by a 1st amendment claim.
    Come on where has common sense gone.

    1. 2

      4

      Her criticism was unrestrained. It was unprofessionally rendered. She’s a lawyer. For crying out loud. She knows how to express herself within the bounds of acceptable language as she does daily in courtrooms. Her points and criticism could have been expressed in more devastating effect if they’d been expressed in professional fashion. There is nothing precluding properly expressed criticism. The decision is correct because she handed it to them with her ill chosen language.

    2. 3

      0

      All she said is that he spent office time on the golf course. Like he was the only one. He was out of the office. Nobody in the office cared. We would rather him be doing that than boring the chit out of everyone with his mandatory office stand on a box self aggrandizing BS. God knows I hope his golf game as better than his stand up routine.

Leave a Reply

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

Upload