By: Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Rossiter v. Ramsey, a Philadelphia police officer was terminated for alleged overtime abuses and then subsequently reinstated following an arbitration hearing. After his reinstatement, the officer brought charges that he had been retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment right to associate by his police commissioner. The commissioner argued qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment.
Kenneth Rossiter was a police officer with the City of Philadelphia until he was terminated following allegations of overtime abuses in 2012. Rossiter challenged the termination at arbitration and was reinstated in 2013. After his reinstatement, Rossiter brought five claims against Commissioner Ramsey. The district court dismissed all but one of the claims, his claim of retaliation based on his First Amendment right to associate with a police union.
Rossiter provided evidence that his termination was due to his association with the union by showing: that the FOP represented him surrounding the charges of overtime abuse; the FOP filed a grievance that stated the commissioner had threatened to terminate Rossiter at a meeting if he did not withdraw a pending grievance; and Rossiter was terminated four days after that meeting which was described as “very unusual” by other witnesses.
The commissioner moved for summary judgment stating he was entitled to qualified immunity. However, the district court found that whether conduct is constitutionally protected is a question of law and that it is clear that association with a union is protected. The commissioner next argued that Rossiter was only a passive member of the union and therefore had not engaged in speech or assembly sufficient to trigger protection. The district court was also unpersuaded by this argument and found that it was a dispute on sufficiency of evidence that was best suited for trial not summary judgment.
In summary, the police commissioner was not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to associate with a police union is a clearly protected constitutional activity and the charging officer had provided evidence to show a link between that association and his termination.
This case brings up the issue of “qualified immunity” for government officials, such as law enforcement and fire fighters. “Qualified immunity” is a shield that insulates individual government officials from being sued in court for legal violations. This protection can be pierced, as demonstrated by the highlighted case, so long as the employee can show a violation of a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. The crux of the qualified immunity protection is notice. A government official cannot be subject to suit if the law is not clearly established because he or she is not on notice that his or her conduct is unconstitutional. As a result, the courts acknowledge that it would be fundamentally unfair to impose liability on public officials who guess as to the constitutionality of their conduct, but reasonably guess wrong. The courts have explained that the application of “qualified immunity” requires a careful balance between holding public official accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and shielding them from lawsuits when they perform their duties reasonably.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information The Right to Associate with Individuals of One’s Choosing **
