Eighth Circuit Rejects Officer’s First Amendment Claims Arising from Completed Police Report

By Kate Acheson

A Missouri Police Officer who was passed over for a promotion and other positive job benefits, claimed the City was retaliating against him for reporting City official corruption in an internal investigation report.  In Buehrle v. City of O’Fallon, Mo., the Eighth Circuit concluded that the First Amendment did not protect the Officer’s speech, which was made in the course of his official duties, and upheld a summary judgment dismissing his claims.

From 2005 to 2006, Officer Buehrle was assigned to investigate and report on potential corruption and wrongful acts of City Officials and other employees at City Hall.  After completing this assignment, he returned to patrol where he was injured while chasing a suspect.  Shortly thereafter, the City assigned Officer Buehrle to the less-desirable second shift for three years in a row.  The City also denied Officer Buehrle two light duty requests, two transfer requests, and two promotion applications.  Each time Officer Buehrle was denied a promotion, he was ranked highest on the list of applicants, but was passed-over in favor of a younger officer. Buehrle filed suit, alleging the City’s denial of his promotion and other positive job benefits was retaliatory and discriminatory.

Buehrle specifically claimed the City retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment because the City was upset with the conclusions of his internal investigation report.  However, because Buehrle was assigned to report potential corruption, his report was part of his official duties and therefore was not speech on public matters protected by the First Amendment.  The Eighth Circuit explained:

[W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

Thus, the Court concluded that the speech Buehrle contended prompted the City’s retaliation was not protected by the First Amendment and his free speech claim was meritless.