Shirvell v. Department of Attorney General, 308 Mich. App. 702

Shirvell, an assistant attorney general, was terminated for conduct unbecoming a state employee after a public blog targeting Armstrong, a gay student leader, and related media appearances.
The blog, Chris Armstrong Watch, included demeaning, harassing, and discriminatory content about Armstrong and associates, including references to a “radical homosexual agenda” and other hostile imagery.
Shirvell publicly criticized Armstrong and appeared outside Armstrong’s residence and at events, spawning extensive media coverage and public complaints to the Department.
Following termination on November 8, 2010, Shirvell pursued a grievance challenging just cause and separately sought unemployment benefits.
The grievance proceeding and unemployment compensation proceeding were consolidated on appeal, with the MCAC affirming the UIA’s denial and the circuit court reversing in part, leading to these appellate decisions.
The Court ultimately held: (i) Shirvell’s First Amendment speech was not protected under Pickering in the termination and benefits contexts; (ii) there was just cause for termination; and (iii) the unemployment denial was supported by substantial evidence of misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shirvell’s speech was protected by the First Amendment in the termination context	Shirvell argues speech was protected and termination was unconstitutional	Department argues speech caused disruption justifying discipline	Speech not protected; interests in efficient public service outweighed the First Amendment claim
Whether the Department had just cause to terminate Shirvell	Just cause was not shown; speech alone should not justify termination	Conduct unbecoming a state employee and repeated disruptive actions justified dismissal	There was just cause for termination under CSRs; conduct undermined credibility and mission
Whether Shirvell’s unemployment benefits were properly denied as misconduct	Speech related activity did not constitute misconduct under MESA	Totality of conduct showed willful disregard of employer interests constituting misconduct	Shirvell’s conduct satisfied misconduct; benefits denial affirmed and remand ordered for MCAC’s order to be reinstated

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing test for public employee speech vs. government efficiency)
Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1987) (speech on public concerns weighed against government function; limitations vary by role)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (government employer’s interests in speech by public employees)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (public concern gatekeeping; context matters for speech protection)
NTEU v. Department of Treasury, 513 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1995) (appeals to First Amendment protection for off-duty, non-work-related speech; limits on application)
Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2002) (police dept. interest in integrity/reputation outweighs officer’s private speech when linked to department)
Locurto v. Giuliani, 447 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2006) (reputation and public trust concerns justify discipline when speech harms public service)
Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 706 A.2d 706 (N.J. 1998) (conduct unbecoming defined as conduct adversely affecting morale/efficiency or public confidence)
Carter v. Employment Security Comm., 364 Mich. 538, 111 N.W.2d 817 (Mich. 1961) (misconduct involves willful disregard of employer interests; can be based on a series of derelictions)