Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 131 S. Ct. 2488

Guarnieri, a police chief in Duryea, Pennsylvania, challenged his termination via a union grievance that proceeded to arbitration.
Arbitrator found procedural errors in the termination and also found Guarnieri engaged in misconduct, including attempting to intimidate council members, and ordered reinstatement after discipline.
Upon return, the borough council issued 11 directives restricting Guarnieri’s duties, overtime, and use of the police car and building; Guarnieri contended these directives were retaliation for his protected activity.
Guarnieri amended his claim to include denial of overtime, arguing retaliation for his grievance and later § 1983 suit; District Court instructed that the petition was protected activity and jurors could find retaliation.
Court of Appeals affirmed compensatory damages but held the Petition Clause protects petitions even on private concerns; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Petition Clause retaliation claims apply public-concern test	Guarnieri argues petition retaliation is protected regardless of public concern.	Defendants argue public-concern test for Speech Clause should not govern Petition Clause claims.	Public-concern test does not apply; framework balanced under Petition Clause instead.
What framework governs Petition Clause retaliation in public employment	Petition rights are broad protections against retaliation.	Government interests in internal operations justify restraints on petitions.	Balance employee petitioning as citizen against government’s internal-efficiency interests; if favorable to employee, claim survives; otherwise fails.
Does petition filed with employer as sovereign vs. as employer affect liability	Petitioner’s activity should be protected regardless of recipient capacity.	Distinguish petitions to sovereign from petitions to employer; employer-capacity petitions receive less protection.	Remand guidance to apply appropriate balance on petitions addressed to employer vs. sovereign; protective framework depends on capacity.

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-concern test for speech by public employees)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech framework for public employees; workplace interests)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balance of employee speech vs. government interests)
Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (greater leeway for government in internal affairs)
Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) (restrictions on speech in public employment context)
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984) (Petition Clause reach in administrative contexts)
Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983) (petitioning right to seek redress through NLRB processes)
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) (right of access to courts as aspect of right to petition)
Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964) (early formulations on petition rights in professional contexts)
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) (litigation as vehicle for political expression and public interest)