In Gloetzner v. Lynch, a U.S. Deputy Marshall brought a suit alleging age discrimination under the ADEA against the U.S. Department of Justice. Marshall brought a number of claims of discriminatory treatment but all but one were all dismissed as having been brought too late. The one claim that the Court did not dismiss as timebarred was Marshall’s claim that he applied to be able to attend a firearms training session but was passed over in favor of a younger colleague. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted the defendants motion for summary judgement, holding that the Marshall had not stated a meritorious claim on this.
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 Peeples v. City of Detroit, eleven firefighters brought a lawsuit against the City and their Union, arguing that they were laid off for racially discriminatory reasons. The firefighters had been improperly laid off due to a misreading of the CBA by the City. When the firefighter’s Union notified the City of its mistake, the firefighters were reinstated. However, they argue that the decision to lay them off resulted not from a contract dispute, but from racial animus. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed their claims against both the City and the Union.
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 Volker v. County of Nassau, a County fired an Affirmative Action Specialist after alleging he engaged in activity that the County said was outside the scope of his employment. He had submitted a report to his employer, a Sheriff’s Department, detailing the work that the Department needed to do in order to comply with Affirmative Action guidelines. The Department argued that in making the report, he had violated several policies, including interviewing employees without representation present, and proceeded to fire him. He then sued the Department, alleging that his termination had been in retaliation for protected activity. The Department moved for summary judgement, which the U.S. Federal Court for the Eastern District of New York denied.
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 Freelain v. Village of Oak Park, an Illinois police officer who requested leave to take care of his sick wife, and after he developed migraine headaches, sued his department for retaliation under the ADA and FMLA. The department argued that the actions the officer was complaining about were administrative errors that it had corrected. A United States District Court in Illinois agreed with the department and dismissed the officer’s 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 Cook v. City of Philadelphia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Philadelphia’s required psychological exam for police officer applicants was valid and non-discriminatory, and that a failed exam with no further evidence could not be used as the basis for an employment discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
