Precedent Setting Decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, restoring the right to free speech for public employees with significant implications for the civil rights of public employees. Docket No. 07-1892-cv, Sousa v. Roque (Appellate Court Judges: John Gleason and Jose A. Cabranes, Decided August 21, 2009)
Appellate Court verdict Docket No. 07-1982-CV regarding a case involving a culture of mobbing at the State of Conncticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Bryan J Sousa, Plaintiff-Appellant, writes in a personal e-mail: „After reporting a culture of mobbing, I was retaliated against by DEP management (Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut) to the point where I was driven from the workforce with failing health, then ultimately fired. I thereupon filed a lawsuit in Federal court asserting, amongst other things, violations of my civil rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress by DEP management. However, a Federal judge initially ruled that my case was ineligible for trial in Federal court since the issues I raised were, in the judge’s opinion, not ‘matters of public concern’ due to the fact that the issues were intermixed with an employment dispute. I therefore appealed the decision and won. In summary, the Appellate Court ruled that the issues I expressed were indeed matters of public concern regardless of the context in which they were raised. More specifically: ‘The speakers’ motive, while one factor that may be considered, is not dispositive as to whether his speech addressed a matter of public concern’.”
The book Mobbing, Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace was central to the credibility of this case. In its decision, the Appellate Court Judge Cabranes quoted an e-mail by Plaintiff-Appellant, Bryan Sousa, to DEP Management making reference to the book and the insights it provided. The judge furthermore, referred to the terminology “mobbing” in the verdict (p.4) to denote Sousa’s complaints: “Sousa complained about incidents of group harassment against him called “mobbing,” which is a process of abusive behaviors inflicted over time. Specifically, he reported that he had been harassed by various lower-level employees and that ……” (See page 4 of decision).
