The latest case law and legal developments in Washington labor & employment law.
By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
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.
By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
In Policemen’ Benevolent & Protective Association v. City of Chicago, a federal court found that an officer’s due process rights had been violated when his disciplinary hearing was put off indefinitely while a criminal trial was in progress. The officer had been involved in a use of force incident in which other officers had been charged with crimes. To ensure that the defendants’ rights to due process are protected, they may need to hire a criminal defence lawyer.
By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
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.
By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
In Booth v. North Slope Borough, a federal court held that a Police Department employee could proceed with her claim that she was fired in retaliation for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as well as her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
[Read more…]
By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
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.
By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
In Serna v. Board of Commissioners of Rio Ariba County, a Court held that detention center employees had a viable lawsuit that they should be paid for pre-shift briefings.
By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
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.
By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
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.
By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
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.
By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
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.
