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.
In Phillips v. Marion County Sheriff’s Office (194 LRRM 2389 (9th Cir. 2012)), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Corrections Officer has a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment once a final and binding reinstatement order has been issued.
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.
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 Although officially unpublished and not precedent setting, the case deals with an issue of emerging importance.
A police officer’s claim, that his discharge was due to “anti-union animus,” in violation of his freedom of association, was recently dismissed by Colorado District Court in Cillo v. City of Greenwood Village. The Court found that the discharge was properly motivated by the officer’s misconduct, which violated a suspect’s constitutional rights and department policy, not by any anti-union animus.
After being subjected to repeated urine-sample drug tests, a New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) Officer, Ada Perez, filed complaint. The MTA moved to dismiss. In Perez v. Metro. Transp. Auth., the District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss Officer Perez’s complaint, reasoning that sufficient information existed for a jury to find in Officer Perez’s favor on her unreasonable search and seizure claim.
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.”
A recent decision from U.S. l District Court in Arizona denied the City of Prescott, Arizona’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit by a former firefighter, who alleged that he had been coerced into retiring by being threatened with criminal charges for having traded shifts. In Vicente v. City of Prescott, AZ, 33 IER Cases 1306 (D. Ariz. 2012), Vicente, who had been a firefighter for almost 20 years and a Captain for 10, was vice president of the firefighters union.
