In Santarlas v. City of Coleman, a federal court ruled that a Chief of Police who was tasked with securing funding for the Department and complained about misuse of public funds was speaking as part of his job duties, not as a private citizen. As a result, the Chief’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment and he could not sue the City for violating his constitutional rights.
In Vanderhoff v. City of Nanticoke, a federal court ruled that an officer’s suit for prior restraint of his free speech rights against the Chief of Police and the City may proceed. The Chief of Police had warned him not to speak out about misconduct in the Police Department.
In Mote v. Walthall, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a Police Chief who threatened and intimated an Officer trying to form a policeman’s association could not assert a qualified immunity defense, because the Officer was engaging in Constitutionally-protected free speech. The lawsuit will therefore continue in a lower court.
In Nagel v. City of Jamestown, a Federal Court held that even though an officer was not given complete notice of the charges against him before he was terminated, the fact that he received a full post-termination hearing meant that he received due process under the law.
In Derby v. City of Pittsburg, a Federal Court in California ruled that Internal Affairs Investigator Wade Derby could not prove that there was a direct link between his statements in court relating to suspicious practices at the Pittsburgh Police Department and being fired from his job. The Court ruled that Derby’s statements in court were not protected by the First Amendment.
In Derby v. City of Pittsburg, a Federal Court in California ruled that Internal Affairs Investigator Wade Derby could not prove that there was a direct link between his statements in court relating to suspicious practices at the Pittsburgh Police Department and being fired from his job. The Court ruled that Derby’s statements in court were not protected by the First Amendment.
In Smith v. Town of Bridgewater, a Federal District Court in Massachusetts dismissed the claim of a Special Police Officer, employed on a one-year contract, that his due process rights had been violated. The court found that the Officer only had a reasonable expectation of employment for the term of his contract. The Town decided not to re-hire him outside of that contract, and therefore that decision did not violate the Officer’s due process right to a termination hearing.
In Finley v. City of Colby, Police Officer Lance Finley claimed that the Chief of Police and the County Sheriff acted together to get him fired after he reported that a Sheriff’s Deputy was a threat to public safety. The Court dismissed the officer’s claim of tortious interference by the County Sheriff and dismissed the claim that he was retaliated against for statements his brother (an employee of the Sheriff’s Office) had made. But the court allowed the Officer’s claim that he was fired for speaking out on an issue of public safety to continue.
In Plancich v. County of Skagit, a Skagit County deputy sheriff was discharged for abuse of authority after he participated in a traffic stop that recovered property stolen from his relatives. The deputy alleged that the investigation into this conduct was retaliation for his support of an opponent in a Sheriff’s election and filed a First Amendment claim. The Federal District Judge Robert Lasnick found that the deputy had a triable issue because the investigation and his support of the opposing candidate occurred closely together and the Department had a history of discriminatory treatment for officers who supported the losing Sheriff’s candidate. But the Court dismissed the First Amendment claim, accepting the County’s argument that an intervening arbitration decision finding just cause for the discharge which also held that there was no retaliatory claim precluded the First Amendment lawsuit under the doctrine of “collateral estoppel.”
In Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1, et al. v. City of Camden, et al., a New Jersey District Court dismissed several officers’ claims that they had been retaliated against, and one officer’s claim that his FMLA rights had been denied by the City. In their complaint, the officers claimed that several defendants had retaliated against them or interfered with their FMLA rights after they spoke out against a “directed patrol” policy. The District Court dismissed all of their claims because the officers failed to show that their poor performance under the policy was not the primary reason for their transfers. The Court also found that there was no evidence that the defendants denied one of the officers his rights under the FMLA or harmed him.
