The defendants denied the plaintiffs' charges, arguing that their claims should be dismissed because the plaintiffs' speech was not of matter public concern, and even if it were, the defendants' interest in maintaining a united work force outweighed the plaintiffs' right to speak out.

The court began by listing the elements that the plaintiffs had to prove to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim. Specifically, they were required to show that:

• They were engaged in constitutionally protected speech or association,

• They were subjected to adverse actions that caused them to suffer an injury that would likely chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct, and

• The adverse actions were motivated at least in part by the protected conduct.

Because the plaintiffs were public employees, they also had to demonstrate that their speech implicated a matter of public interest or concern, and that their interest in taking up the matter of public concern outweighed the defendants' interests as employers “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”

The court observed that generally, speech implicates a matter of public concern when it informs the community that a government entity has failed to discharge its governmental responsibilities or has engaged in “actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust.” It involves issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to make informed decisions about the operation of their government. The fact that a public employee engages in the speech while in the course of his or her employment doesn't necessarily preclude a finding that the speech touches upon a matter of public concern. While the employee's motive for engaging in the speech in question is relevant, it's not a dispositive factor when considering whether the employee's expression is of public concern.

The court said that the defendants' challenge to whether the plaintiffs' speech qualified as touching on matters of public concern was built upon their characterization of the topics discussed by the plaintiffs as dealing first and foremost with the plaintiffs' own personal interests. The court disagreed with the defendants' characterization, holding that the plaintiffs' speech here was not exclusively about personal employment issues. Rather, much of their speech concerned the well-being of the public in general. They spoke about safety and training issues, thus bringing these concerns to the attention of the general public and the township administration. The flier they prepared and circulated urged citizens to contact their elected officials.