new department were substantially similar to those in the old division, the state could not terminate employees from civil service and fill the jobs with new employees without violating the constitution. See id. at 647. Bardsley presents different concerns than are present in this case precisely because it involved the termination of employees. Because no classified employees were terminated, the reorganization did not violate the constitution, even though the new Lab School positions are substantially similar to the teaching positions before the reorganization. C. Metro teachers are themselves state employees, albeit not protected by civil service. Contrary to the complainants' arguments, this is not a case implicating the concerns of privatization. Cf. Highways, 809 P.2d at 992-97 (<HOLDING>). In striking down an effort to privatize
holding that shifting job duties from classified state employees to private vendors violates the state constitution and the statute governing personal services contracts recognizing exception under state constitution holding that under the first amendment speech can be pursuant to a public employees official job duties even though it is not required by or included in the employees job description or in response to a request by the employer holding that the plaintiffs challenge to a state law affecting the performance of her job duties was mooted when she left state employment holding that garcetti barred claims involving speech not necessarily required by the plaintiffs job duties but nevertheless  related to his job duties