English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Since 1968, the threshold inquiry for determining whether the First Amendment protected public employees from retaliation for their speech was whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. For almost forty years, courts focused on whether an employee spoke on a “matter of public concern” and paid little attention to whether the employee spoke “as a citizen.” As long as their speech concerned a matter of public concern, public employees were generally protected from retaliation if the employee’s interest in commenting on public issues outweighed the state’s interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performed.

The “Official Duties” Puzzle: Lower Courts’ Struggle With First Amendment Protection for Public Employees After Garcetti v. Ceballos