On Tuesday, November 17, 2009, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals---the federal appellate court having jurisdiciton over Utah---determined that the correct standard to be assessed on retaliation claims arising under the First Amendment is whether the alleged retaliatory actions are actions that "would deter a reasonable person from exercising his . . . First Amendment rights." In Couch v. Board of Trustees, the Tenth Circuit was asked to determine whether a doctor employed by a state hospital had suffered retaliation for expressing his support of a more stringent drug-testing policy. After he began advocating for such a policy and implicating certain doctors at the facility of having drug problems, he was the subject of investigations, was not reappointed to a seat on a committee, and administrative proceedings were instituted against him. Although the Court considered some of the actions as potentially retaliatory, it concluded in every instance that the motives for the actions were not a result of the doctor's advocacy but were the result of other unrelated incidents or events.Labels: Discrimination, Drug Testing, First Amendment, Government Employees, Government Employer, Investigations, Tenth Circuit