In Frakes v. Elba-Salem Fire Protection District, a volunteer firefighter alleged he had been unlawfully terminated after complaining about perceived violations by the Fire District. He argues that his firing was retaliation for complaints about unlawful behavior, and therefore that his First Amendment right to free speech was violated. The United States Federal Court for the Central District of Illinois found that some of his claims had merit and moved for a jury trial.
In Williams v. McKee, a detention officer at a jail was terminated because he continuously displayed an offensive bumper sticker on his truck. The Sheriff in charge of the facility repeatedly warned him to take down or cover up the sticker, but these warnings went largely unheeded. After his termination, the detention officer brought a lawsuit alleging that his First Amendment rights had been violated. The Tenth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s motion to dismiss the suit.
In Way v. Shawnee Township, a firefighter was demoted and then discharged after complaining of a culture of bigotry and racism in the Fire Department. The firefighter first notified the Fire Chief of the problems in the Department, and was told to drop the issue. However, the problems persisted, and the firefighter continued to complain until he was fired. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the Township’s motion to dismiss.
In Otto v. Williams, plaintiffs were seven police officers who were accused of conspiracy, fired, and later acquitted. A labor arbitrator reinstated them with back pay after their acquittal. Despite this, the officers brought a lawsuit against the City and the Police Department, arguing that their procedural due process had been violated because they had a property interest in their reputations, and that interest had been violated without due process. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed their claims.
In Strosnider v. City of Nampa, an assistant fire chief claimed that he was discharged from his job in retaliation for exercising rights under the First Amendment and Idaho whistleblower law. The assistant fire chief notified two apartment building managers of the need to renovate their buildings, despite the misgivings of the Mayor of Nampa. After issuing the warnings, the assistant fire chief was terminated.
In Lange v. McGinnis, a Michigan police captain deleted all the files on a former employee’s hard drive before returning it to him. The employee sued the city and the captain alleging an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit held that the police captain was protected from the suit under qualified immunity because nothing indicated his actions were impermissible.
In Walter v. City of St. Peters, a Federal Court Judge in Missouri ruled that a police offer stated sufficiently plausible facts to survive a motion to dismiss his claim that the City, and the individual supervisors within the city, violated his First Amendment rights, when they refused to hire the officer as park ranger, as part of an unofficial policy of retaliating against workers for union activity.
In Cortez-Debonar v. Fretwell, two former firefighter trainees sued the city of Las Vegas after they were terminated from the firefighter academy following allegations of cheating. The district court held that the trainees could pursue both their due process and breach of contract claims.
In Cheatham v. DiCiccio, a majority of the Arizona Supreme Court found that union release time was not illegal under the state constitution’s Gift Clause.
In Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1, et al. v. City of Camden, et al., a New Jersey District Court dismissed several officers’ claims that they had been retaliated against, and one officer’s claim that his FMLA rights had been denied by the City. In their complaint, the officers claimed that several defendants had retaliated against them or interfered with their FMLA rights after they spoke out against a “directed patrol” policy. The District Court dismissed all of their claims because the officers failed to show that their poor performance under the policy was not the primary reason for their transfers. The Court also found that there was no evidence that the defendants denied one of the officers his rights under the FMLA or harmed him.
