Edward Lane.jpg

Edward Lane (Submitted photo)

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama – Edward Lane was the director of a statewide program for Alabama's at-risk youth when he saw State Rep. Sue Schmitz was drawing pay, but doing no work, for the program.

Lane fired Schmitz in 2006 and later testified at her public corruption trials regarding the "no-show" job. "I was warned I was treading on dangerous grounds, but it was the right thing to do," he said.

Doing the "right thing" proved to be costly for Lane, but the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in his favor in a lawsuit he filed after his firing. What that means for other whistleblowers, however, is not exactly clear.

Just before Schmitz's second trial, which was one of many stemming from Alabama's two-year college scandal and ended with Schmitz sentenced to 30 months in prison, Lane was fired from his $100,000 plus job as director of the Community Intensive Training for Youth -- or CITY Program.

He is now a military police officer at the Anniston Army Depot.

Lane sued Central Alabama Community College and its president Steve Franks claiming he was wrongly fired in retaliation for firing Schmitz and testifying at her trials. A federal judge in Birmingham and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, ruled that Lane's testimony was not protected free speech under the First Amendment because he was testifying in his official capacity.

On Thursday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Lane was testifying outside the scope of his normal job duties and his testimony was protected free speech.

What does the ruling mean?

While that ruling was lauded by some as an expansion of free speech for public employees who testify at trials, several experts said the ruling is very narrow and doesn't protect all public employees who testify.

"I don't think it's really going to afford significantly more protection for public employee free speech than we used to have before," said John Carroll, dean of the Cumberland School of Law.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had said that Lane did not speak as a citizen when he testified at Schmitz's trial.

The Supreme Court, however, said Lane's case involved public corruption and his testimony wasn't part of his normal job duties, Carroll said. "In the (Supreme Court) opinion it talks about how important stamping out public corruption is," he said.

So in the future, if a public employee is fired for testifying under subpoena about something outside their normal job description then the public official who fired them would not have immunity from a lawsuit, Carroll said.

What questions are left unanswered?

The Supreme Court stopped short of saying all testimony by public employees is protected free speech.

The court left open the question of whether public employees who testify in the course of their official job duties -- such as police officers and crime scene technicians -- are also protected by the First Amendment. The ruling stated it was leaving the questions raised by those scenarios "for another day."

Jim Barger, a Birmingham attorney who specializes in whistleblower lawsuits, also said the ruling was far from groundbreaking. "It unfortunately leaves open the question whether a public employee who testifies in his or her job capacity regarding public corruption issues will be afforded protection from retaliation."

"It should be beyond question that people who are brave enough to come forward to report wrongdoing should be protected and appreciated; nowhere is this more important than in the criticism and scrutiny of public officials," Barger said.

"I hear from potential whistleblowers every day, and the sad truth is that the majority of them are too fearful of retaliation to bring their allegations to light. Hopefully, Justice Sotomayor's opinion – even though limited in its scope – will bolster whistleblowers, particularly those within local, state, and the federal government to come forward when they witness abuses."

A landmark decision

Despite the limited scope of the Supreme Court ruling, employee groups and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange lauded the decision.

"I think it is a landmark decision as far as employees in the State of Alabama," said Mac McArthur, executive director of the Alabama State Employees Association, which represents more than 18,000 state employees. "Certainly I believe very fundamentally that an employee of the State of Alabama should be able to answer questions under an official proceeding and not be fearful of job reprisals," he said.

American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees President Lee Saunders issued a statement that says the ruling was a "victory for free speech" and that Lane should have been rewarded, not fired, for speaking out.

Saunders, however, said the group was disappointed the Supreme Court did not also establish a clear rule that sworn testimony by public employees should never be the basis for any retaliatory action by a public employer.

"Those in the public service should not have to worry about losing their jobs when they are witnesses before a court, a key part of our democracy," he stated.

Strange, who personally argued the case before the Supreme Court, said that the ruling protects public employees who act as whistleblowers and helping prosecutors by testifying to expose public corruption, even if the employees learn that information as a result of their public employment.

Lane's attorney, John Saxon, said the opinion should help prosecutors nationwide to prosecute corrupt public officials by allowing employees to step forward to testify without fear of reprisal.

"This is an immensely important case for public employees and their First Amendment rights. We rarely see unanimous Supreme Court opinions," he said.

What does the ruling mean for Lane?

The Supreme Court on Thursday didn't decide the issue of whether Lane can get his job back or receive other compensation. The court sent those issues back to the federal court in Birmingham to decide.

Franks did not have fair warning that Lane's speech was protected, so Franks was still granted qualified immunity by the lower courts. The U.S. Supreme Court did not reverse that.

Efforts to reach attorneys for the college and Franks were unsuccessful.

Lane said he doesn't know where the suit will go from here or whether he will get a job back within the community college system or some other kind of compensation.

Lane is just happy with the ruling.

"I'm extremely proud. ... When I started this journey, I just wanted my name back."