Archives for December 2012

Rumor has it! New Jersey Officer’s Free Speech Claim Based on Rumors Dismissed for Lack of Evidence

By Kate Acheson

Officer Von Rhine, an employee of Camden, NJ County Sheriff’s Department, claimed his Department violated his First Amendment rights to Free Speech by transferring him in retaliation, for complaints he made against his boss.  The Federal Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed this claim in Von Rhine v. Camden County Sherriff’s Office.

[Read more…]

Commissioner’s “Conniving Ivan” Comment Not an ADA Violation, Connecticut Federal Court Finds

By Kate Acheson

In Fossesigurani v. City of Bridgeport Fire Dept., the Connecticut Federal Court dismissed an assistant city fire chief’s American with Disabilities Act claims, arising from a fire commissioner’s allegedly derogatory comment.  The court found the comment alone was insufficient proof of an adverse employment action, or a hostile work environment under the ADA.

[Read more…]

Remove that Tattoo or Find Another Job! Third Circuit Reject’s Applicant’s Objections to State Police Pre-Hire Tattoo Review Policy

By Kate Acheson

The Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals has found a Pennsylvania State Police pre-hire tattoo policy, was properly applied without violating an applicant’s Constitutional rights in Scavone v. Pennsylvania State Police.  Although officially unpublished and not precedent setting, the case deals with an issue of emerging importance.

[Read more…]

A Case of Mistaken Disability: Officer’s Good Faith Belief Saves ADA Retaliation Claim

By Kate Acheson

In Forgione v. City of New York, a New York District Court found that an officer mistakenly perceived as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), only had sufficient proof to show “retaliation,” but not “discrimination” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), where the Department had sent the officer for a fitness for duty evaluation.  The Court concluded that evidence existed of a retaliatory intent in the compelled examination, but that a psychological examination did not constitute an “adverse action” under the ADA.

[Read more…]