Is petitioner's reporting of misuse of 'select infectious agents' in BSL-2 lab protected speech?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , As of August 1, 2022, due to the ongoing COVID19 pandemic which is caused by a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2, a select infectious agent, more than 6.4 million people have lost their lives. Although not confirmed yet, the World Health Organization is investigating if the virus leaked from a laboratory and caused the current pandemic. To prevent. infections to humans and animals due to intentional misuse of select infectious agents (dangerous viruses) by untrained lab personnel in lower biosafety lab and animal facilities, petitioner reported the misuse to law enforcement agencies and The Ohio State University’s administration and faced retaliation. In Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228, 240 (2014), this Court ruled that in order to show that the speech is employee-speech outside the protection of the First Amendment, the public employer must show that the speech is related to the employee’s “ordinary job responsibilities.” Jd. at 240. The Sixth Circuit below included campus police in petitioner’s chain of | command, falsified petitioner’s job description and actual speech, reporting of misuse of “select infectious agents” (highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza virus and the GB Texas strain of New Castle disease virus) which are included in the “Federal Select Agent Program”, in lower biosafety level, BSL-2 lab to reporting of “infectious agents” (H5N1 avian influenza virus, not a select infectious agent) to make petitioner’s speech related to his ordinary job duties and wrongly affirmed the district court’s ruling. Petitioner had appealed the district court’s incorrect ruling that reporting of LL rere ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued federally regulated infectious agents related to petitioner’s official duties. In appeal, petitioner reasserted that it was not part of petitioner’s ordinary job duties to illegally work with select infectious agents in BSL-2 lab which according to Federal Law should be handled in higher biosafety lab, BSL-3 lab. When petitioner made the report of misuse of select infectious agents, department had no BSL-3 lab and petitioner had not received advanced special training necessary to work with select infectious agents in BSL-3 lab, thus working illegally with select infectious agents in BSL-2 lab or training others or reporting their misuse cannot be petitioner’s ordinary job duties. ‘ Additionally, Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 422 . (2006), holds that’ government-employee speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected. However, in: Garcetti, this Court also explicitly stated that it was not ruling on speech related to scholarship or teaching. Jd. at 425. Currently, four Circuits, including the Sixth Circuit have recognized academic freedom exception to Garcettifor speech by Public University Professors. Petitioner, worked as Research Scientist (non-tenure track faculty) in the ‘ Ohio State University (OSU) whose research in the Virology and Cell Biology fields directly contributed to the education ‘mission of the university. Petitioner, as an expert in Virology recognized that misuse of select infectious agents in BSL-2 lab by untrained lab personnel can cause deadly infections to humans and animals (violation of Bioterrorism Act, 2002). To protect the public and animal health, petitioner reported the misuse of select agents to law | QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued enforcement agencies and the university administration. Even though petitioner’s speech is not related to his ordinary job duties, the Sixth Circuit and the district court wrongly applied Garcetti to petitioner’s speech. As a research faculty member in a public university, Petitioner’s speech on research procedure should also qualify for an academic exception to Garcetti. The Sixth Circuit also ignored all the facts and wrongly affirmed the district court’s decision that petitioner did not suffer and adverse employment action due to his perceived disability and due to his son’s medical condition. The ques