Whether the District Court abused its discretion in its application of the standards set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) when it determined that a First Amendment retaliation claim brought by public employee firefighters (Petitioners herein) was frivolous and awarded attorney fees against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and in its award focused on the falsity of speech

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The District Court granted summary judgment upon a First Amendment retaliation claim brought by public employee firefighters — ruling that their speech was not protected by the First Amendment because the speech was incorrect and the firefighters were deliberately indifferent to the falsity of the speech. The District Court then granted the public employer's motion for attorney fees against the firefighters under 42 U.S.C. §1988. Petitions seek review before this Court on the following questions: Whether the District Court abused its discretion in its application of the standards set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) when it determined that a First Amendment retaliation claim brought by public employee firefighters (Petitioners herein) was frivolous and awarded attorney fees against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and in its award focused on the falsity of speech — when the firefighter Petitioners demonstrated as a basis for their claim that: (1) they experienced adverse consequences because of their speech, (2) the Chief of the Fire Department conceded that he believed Petitioner Bagi felt there was some truth to the basis of the speech, and (8) the arbitrator concluded that the punishment against Petitioners was too severe and rejected the contention that Petitioners’ speech was motivated by malice or they made their speech knowing that the allegations were false? ii Whether the public employer waived its ability to obtain attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 by not submitting documentation of such fees timely under the District Court’s Order? Whether the District Court abused its discretion in not permitting Petitioners to engage in discovery or have a hearing on the reasonableness of the attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988? Whether the public employer was entitled to attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 related to the appeal of summary judgment in its favor when the Court of Appeals affirmed the award on different grounds and there was no order that the appeal was frivolous under Fed. R. App. P. 38?