In Pubentz, an FBI linguist’s First Amendment retaliation claim failed because the linguist’s comments, made during a work presentation at the Chicago FBI Office, were not made as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Moreover, even if the speech was made as a citizen and on a matter of public concern, the court held the government’s interest would outweigh the linguist’s in this scenario.
In Smith v. County of Suffolk, the plaintiff Raymond Smith, a Suffolk County Police Lieutenant, failed to show a connection between his protected free speech and the adverse employment action. The court held that Smith’s First Amendment Retaliation claim failed because a jury could conclude Smith’s discipline was linked to repeated misuse of the employer’s computers and not his protected free speech.
In Kristofek v. Village of Orland Hills, the court reversed a judgment dismissing an officer’s Free Speech Claim. The lower court held that the officer’s Free Speech Claim failed because it was based on a self-interest motive—protection from civil and criminal liability—and not on a matter of “public concern.” However, the appeals court reserved, holding that the officer’s motive, by itself, does not conclusively determine whether a public employee's speech involves a matter of public concern and is thus protected.
In De Le Garza, a First Amendment retaliation claim survived summary judgment when there was independent testimony that the Sheriff did not hire the plaintiff, the only candidate for School Resource Officer, because of the plaintiff’s political stance.
In Gawlas v. King, 34 IER Cases 1485 (3d Cir. 2013), the Federal Third Circuit upheld the dismissal of both retaliation and claim brought by a Pennsylvania police officer when there was no alleged causal connection between the complaining officer’s union position and political affiliations and the removal of the K9 unit to which he was assigned. The court also found no due process violation, finding no property interest in the K-9 position which offered no premium pay.
In Singer v. Ferro, 35 IER Cases 614 (2013), the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants and dismissed Singer’s first amendment retaliation claim. Singer had alleged retaliation in the form of baseless disciplinary actions and wrongful termination.
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.
Public employees are protected in the exercise of their First Amendment rights. This allows them to bring lawsuits when an employer’s retaliatiatory action is significant enough to constitute an “adverse employment action.” Not every employer action rises to that level.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that internal grievances do not constitute statements of “public concern,” which are entitled to First Amendment protection. In Brooks v. Arthur, two Virginia corrections officers sued the Virginia State Corrections Department supervisors under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for unlawful termination in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech.
In Hanford Exec. Mgmt. Employees Ass’n v. City of Hanford the court held that an employee Association could pursue its claims that its members faced unlawful discrimination in retaliation for a Vote of No Confidence against the City Manager. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has ruled that an Association’s retaliation claim stated a potential basis for finding several constitutional violations and rejected the City’s efforts to dismiss the lawsuit for “failure to state a claim.”
