Adams v. Trustees UNC Wilmington, et al. - National Association of ...

1985) . Here, however, plaintiff's prima facie case is thethree-pronged test laid out in McVey v. Stacy, 157 F.3d 271 (4thCir. 1998) and restated in Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors MarshallUniversity, 447 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2006)First, the public employee must have spoken as acitizen, not as an employee, on a matter of publicconcern. Second, the employee's interest in theexpression at issue must have outweighed theemployer's interest in providing effective andefficient services to the public. Third, there musthave been a sufficient causal nexus between theprotected speech and the retaliatory employmentaction.Ridpath, 447 F.3d at 316 (quotations and citations omitted) (the"McVey Test").The first prong of this test asks whether a public employeespoke on matters of public concern, and if' he did, whether indoing so he acted as a citizen or as an employee.In this case,plaintiff's retaliation claim is rooted in his columns,publications, and presentations, many of which criticizeddefendants, other UNCW administrators or staff, or theuniversity as a whole, and others of which dealt withcontroversial material and reflected plaintiff's conservativeviews.The novelty of this claim (and the entire case) comesfrom the fact that plaintiff included these materials in hisapplication seeking promotion, thus forcing the very people hecriticized to make professional judgments about this speech.33Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 146 Filed 03/15/2010 Page 33 of 39