In Holbrook v. Lee Cnty., a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied in part the employer, Lee County’s summary judgment motion against a former paramedic’s First Amendment retaliation claim for speaking out about the Employer’s Medicare and Medicaid billing practices.
In Nissen v. Pierce County, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two held that “because some of the private cellular phone call logs and text messages . . . [of a prosecutor that were requested by the Plaintiff] may qualify as . . . [‘public records’ under the state’s Public Records Act] the superior court erred in granting the County’s . . . motion to dismiss.” The Court stated that “call logs for a government official’s private cellular phone constitute ‘public records’ only with regard to the calls that relate to government business and only if these call logs are used or retained by the government agency.” The Court also stated “text messages sent or received by a government official constitute ‘public records’ only if the text messages relate to government business.”
Jeffrey Heffernan, a police officer in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, sued the City for retaliation after he was demoted from Detective to Patrol Officer for engaging in protected speech. Heffernan was demoted the day after other police officers observed him meeting with a Mayoral Candidate’s Campaign Manager to pick up a campaign lawn sign for his ill mother while he was off duty. However, in Heffernan v. City of Paterson, a Federal District Court dismissed Heffernan’s claims, finding that an employee cannot bring a first amendment retaliation claim based on an Employer’s mistaken perception that the Employee is engaging in political speech—there must be some evidence that the individual actually engaged in the speech for which they are retaliated against.
As had been widely anticipated, the United States Supreme Court in Lane v. Franks overturned a ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that had found that a Georgia community college administrator was unprotected by the first amendment when he was retaliated against following his sworn court testimony.
In a decision on a case that had presented significant financial and operational important to Public Employee Unions, the United States Supreme Court held this Monday in Harris v Quinn that the Illinois law, as applied to a special class of home health care workers, unconstitutionally imposed a “fair share” dues payment requirement.
A case currently pending before the US Supreme Court may challenge the Court’s previous holdings that workplace speech that touches on a public employee’s “job duties falls outside the protection of the First Amendment. The Lane v. Franks involved an Alabama Community College employee who was terminated in retaliation for his subpoenaed testimony. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because his testimony was in furtherance of his actual job duties, it did not fall under the “job duties” exception to the First Amendment enunciated by the Supreme Court in 2006 in Garcetti v. Calleballos.
Susan Graziosi, a sergeant of the Greenville Mississippi Police Department, alleged she was fired in retaliation for posting criticisms of her police Chief Freddie Cannon on Facebook The federal district court dismissed her free speech claim in Graziosi v. City of Greenville, finding that the Chief was justified in firing her in order to minimize disruption in the department.
Occasionally, an arbitration decision calls out for a bit more explanation and the Arbitrator’s Ruling allowing the Ocala Fire Department to “Mass Test” its Firefighters is one such decision. As described in our recent case note on the decision, the arbitrator found that the reasonable suspicion language in the CBA allowed the City to undertake a “mass test” all firefighters with any type of access to fire trucks from which narcotics had gone missing.
In Haverda v. Hays County, an the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found Texas Corrections Captain Haverda introduced enough evidence that could lead a reasonable juror to conclude Haverda’s demotion was motivated by his speech. It rejected a lower court ruling that had dismissed Haverda’s claim and sent it back for trial.
In Peele v. Burch, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision granting summary judgment to the City on a detective’s First Amendment Claim against the Portage Indiana Police Department. The court held that the detective presented sufficient evidence that casts doubt on the defendants’ story and thus creates a triable claim.
