Police Department Social Media Policy Found Unconstitutional

Liverman v. City of Petersburg (2016) 844 F.3d 400, involved two police officers who were disciplined based on two posts they made on Facebook. The two officers made posts that were critical of the administration’s practice of promoting inexperienced police officers into management positions. The City’s policy prohibited employees from: 1) making comments that would reflect poorly upon the Department or the City and 2) making negative comments about the operations of the Department. The first policy attempted to qualify itself by essentially stating that the First Amendment would still be observed and officers could comment on issues of general or public concern so long as those comments did not interfere with working relationships, efficient work flow, or undermine public confidence in the Officers.

The comments were purportedly divisive within the department and some patrol officers sought transfers away from the two officers. The two officers were given an oral reprimand and six months probation, but were told that the discipline would not affect their eligibility for promotion. However, several weeks later, a department chief changed the qualifications for promotion such that officers on probation were prohibited from promoting. When the two officers sent notice of their intent to challenge the disciplinary action, they were immediately subjected to several additional investigations which would have resulted in termination. One of the officers retired before he could be terminated.

The two officers contested the social media policy in civil court arguing that the policy violated the First Amendment, and thus, their discipline and the subsequent retaliation should be overturned. The Court recited First Amendment law stating that public employees generally do not lose their rights to speak on matters of public concern, but the speech must be balanced against the interest of the state in promoting the efficiency of the public services it provides. The Court found that the social media policy at issue explicitly restricted speech criticizing the department. 

The Court found it significant that the officers chose Facebook as their forum of choice which the court compared to writing into a newspaper's opinion section. By choosing Facebook, they were clearly showing an intention to communicate their concerns to the public, outside of the employment context. The Department did not establish a significant enough reason other than general concerns of divisiveness as to why such speech should be restricted. The “negative comments” policy did not contain the qualification which would permit comment on matters of public concern and was thus, unconstitutionally overbroad. Accordingly, the discipline against the employees was overturned and the Chief who imposed the discipline was denied qualified immunity because the law in this area was well-established.

Court Allows Officer's Retaliation Lawsuit to Proceed Over Anti-SLAPP Motion

In Armendariz v. City of Burbank, the Second Appellate District held that a Burbank Police Officer’s retaliation lawsuit against his employer could go forward, despite the City’s attempt to strike the complaint on anti-SLAPP grounds. The Burbank Officer sued his employer alleging that they had terminated him due to his outspoken criticism of the Department’s leadership decisions. The City asserted that their internal affairs investigation against the Officer was protected by the first amendment and thus, the Officer’s lawsuit should be stricken.

Specifically the Officer asserted in his complaint that he complained to his department about unlawful arrest and citation quotas being imposed on officers. He also complained repeatedly and publicly about the Chief of Police’s management of the department and new disciplinary guidelines while acting in leadership positions with the Police Officer’s Association. He also complained about the Department's decision to fill senior positions within the Department with outside officers and without complying with civil service protocols. These statements were also made to the press. Not long after these statements and complaints, the Department initiated a series of internal affairs investigations into the Officer.

The general purpose of California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute is to protect against lawsuits which are aimed at preventing or punishing protected first amendment speech. Part of this protection extends to statements made in connection with an “official proceeding authorized by law.” In recent years, cities and counties have been asserting that their internal affairs investigations are such protected proceedings. When employees sue their employers after being terminated due to an internal affairs investigation, employers often try to use anti-SLAPP to shut the lawsuit down.

In order to strike claims in a lawsuit using anti-SLAPP, a defendant must show that the claims of the plaintiff arise out of protected activity. Once demonstrated, the plaintiff may only continue its case if it can establish that its claims have minimal merit. In Armendariz, the court made clear that anti-SLAPP can only be used to strike the individual claims to which the protection applies; it does not destroy the entire complaint if it contains other claims.

In this case, the court decided that the Officer’s claims of retaliation did contain allegations relating to protected activity (the internal affairs investigation). Thus, statements or writings generated in connection with the investigation were protected activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute. However, the Officer was able to establish that his claims had at least minimal merit and likelihood of success. This was due partly to the City’s almost complete failure on appeal to address the Officer’s arguments and evidence submitted, offering only a single paragraph of bare argument in response to over 220 pages of evidence.

The City offered several other token defenses such as failure to exhaust administrative remedies, governmental immunity, and litigation privilege, all of which were denied. Governmental immunity did not apply because while a government entity is protected from vicarious liability from its employee's actions, this protection does not apply when the Officer is seeking to hold the City directly responsible for its violations of the law. Litigation privilege, which precludes liability arising from a publication made in a judicial proceeding, did not apply because the Officer’s claims arose out of the City’s actions of termination, and not necessarily from its statements during the IA process. 

Accordingly, the court allowed the Officer’s lawsuit to go forward and permitted him to recover his costs on appeal.  Although the officer's suit survived the anti-SLAPP motion, this case also illustrates the difficulties presented by the anti-SLAPP statute when challenging adverse employment actions arising from internal affairs investigations.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Public Officials' Right to Respond to Public Smears

In Mulligan v. Nichols et al., the Ninth Circuit upheld public officials' right to respond to disparaging public comments against them. The court's opinion reaffirmed that public officials' speech, by itself, is insufficient to support a First Amendment retaliation claim.

In Mulligan, a former Deutsche Bank executive, who had ties to the entertainment industry, was arrested during a drug-induced tirade. The executive filed an administrative complaint against the arresting officers claiming, in part, that they had used excessive force. Given the executive's former position, the administrative complaint attracted significant media attention. In response, the Los Angeles Police Protective League ("LAPPL") issued a press release exposing the executive as a frequent user of bath salts. Because of the press release and associated negative media coverage, the executive lost his job at Deutsche Bank.

The executive sued the City of Los Angeles, the officers, and LAPPL claiming they had retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment Right to file an administrative claim against the City. The court denied his First Amendment retaliation claim. In support of its finding, the court stated:

"Retaliation claims involving government speech warrant a cautious approach by courts. Restricting the ability of government decisionmakers to engage in speech risks interfering with their ability to effectively perform their duties. It also ignores the competing First Amendment rights to the officials themselves. The First Amendment is intended to 'preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.' McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518, 2529 (2014) (quoting FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 377 (1984)). That marketplace of ideas is undermined if public officials are prevented from responding to speech of citizens with speech of their own. See Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 136 (1966) ('The interest of the public in hearing all sides of a public issue is hardly advanced by extending more protection to citizen-critics than to legislators.')"

The court held that public officials' speech, by itself, is insufficiently adverse to give rise to a First Amendment retaliation claim. The executive was unable to show the City, the officers, or LAPPL took any action which affected his rights, benefits, relationship or status with the state. The court expanded, "As we stated in Nunez, '[i]t would be the height of irony, indeed, if mere speech, in response to speech, could constitute a First Amendment violation."

CPRA May Grant Access to Personnel Records When There is a Strong Public Interest in Disclosure

In Caldecott v. Superior Court of Orange County, the Fourth Appellate District found records associated with a personnel complaint were subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). The court also found an employee's motivation for requesting the documents was irrelevant. Also, whether or not the employee already had the documents was irrelevant.

Caldecott involved a former Newport-Mesa Unified School District employee's request for documents associated with a personnel complaint. John Caldecott worked as an Executive Director of Human Resources. He filed a personnel complaint against District superintendent Fred Navarro. Caldecott alleged Navarro created a hostile work environment and committed misconduct in regards to employee salaries. The District did not take any official action against Navarro, finding Caldecott's allegations unsubstantiated. Subsequently, the District fired Caldecott without cause. Caldecott alleged he was fired in retaliation for filing a complaint against Navarro.

Caldecott requested documents under the CPRA that were associated with his complaint against Navarro. Caldecott requested copies of the District's response to his complaint, and an e-mail Caldecott sent to the District's board regarding the response. Caldecott already had the documents, but he wanted the freedom to publicly disclose the documents without fear of liability. The District denied Caldecott's request claiming disclosure would cause an invasion of personal privacy. The District also denied his request because of "the potential impact of an unjustified accusation on the reputation of an innocent public employee."

The Court of Appeal ruled the documents were subject to disclosure under the CPRA. Caldecott's motivation behind his request and the fact that he already had the documents were irrelevant. Rather, the court weighed the potential harm to Navarro's privacy interests against the public's interest in disclosure. The court found a strong public interest in judging how Navarro responded to Caldecott's claims, especially in light of Caldecott's termination without cause. The court also found a strong public interest in assessing how the District's elected board treated the serious misconduct allegations against its highest ranking administrator. The court awarded Caldecott attorneys fees and costs for successfully challenging the denial of a CPRA request.

This case did not concern the confidentiality of peace officer personnel records. Penal Code section 832.7 creates additional protections for peace officer and correctional officer records.

Public Employee's Personal Grievance Not Protected by the First Amendment

Pete Turner was hired as a "temporary exempt employee" for the Department of Public Works (DPW) in the City and County of San Francisco. Turner complained about his temporary job status, claiming the City and his Manager Bruce Storrs were violating the City Charter. The Charter only allows hiring temporary employees for certain special projects. According to Turner, the City and Storrs planned to underbid survey work for City and County agencies to "corner the market." They would then be able to make up the money on these low bids by overcharging the public and underpaying the staff. Turner claimed he spoke out against this practice at union meetings, staff meetings, and in face-to-face meetings with Storrs. Turner claimed he was being underpaid and assigned work on matters outside of his job description. Shortly after filing a complaint with HR, Turner was fired.

When he was unable to secure a job as a permanent DPW employee, Turner filed a complaint against the City in state court. The district court dismissed his complaint, finding Turner did not state a claim for retaliation under the First Amendment. To state a claim, the employee must show his speech was protected.

In Turner v. City and County of San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit held the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint. The Court clarified that an employee's speech is protected when he speaks out "as a citizen on matters of public concern," but not when he merely airs a personal grievance. The Court distinguished Turner's case from others where the public employee's speech was protected. Unlike those cases, Turner did not raise his complaint in a public forum, like the Civil Service Commission or Board of Supervisors. Because Turner did not seek relief on behalf of other temporary employees, the Court found Turner was motivated by his own dissatisfaction with his job status. The Court noted Turner's allegation that the City and Storr were violating the Charter could touch on a matter of public interest. However, this was not enough for the Court to find Turner's speech was protected under the First Amendment.

This case illustrates that a personal complaint voiced in a private forum will likely not be protected under the First Amendment even if it touches on matters of public interest.

9th Circuit: LAPD Retaliated Against Officer for FLSA Testimony

In Avila v. LAPD, the Ninth Circuit ruled the Los Angeles Police Department violated the FLSA’s anti-retaliation clause when it fired a “model” officer after testifying against the department in a fellow officer’s FLSA case. The FLSA anti-retaliation provision protects employees from discharge or discrimination based on giving testimony in any FLSA proceeding.

LAPD terminated Avila after he testified in a FLSA lawsuit brought by fellow officer, Edward Maciel, who sought overtime pay for working through his lunch hours. Avila testified he periodically worked through his lunch break and did not claim overtime because it was a common practice in the department. After an investigation, the LAPD Board of Rights recommended termination. Avila had no record of discipline.

The court emphasized the sole issue before the jury was whether LAPD’s reason for firing Officer Avila was pretext, not whether LAPD could fire the officer for failing to report overtime or whether Avila’s testimony could be used in an administrative hearing. Thus, the court determined LAPD could not support any viable argument that Avila would not have been terminated if he had not testified at Maciel’s trial. However, the court stated it would not decide whether the use of an employee’s trial testimony was entirely forbidden in an adverse action where the employer has other evidence of the alleged infraction.

Ultimately, the decision confirms the protection afforded to public employees who enforce the FLSA. Avila was awarded $579,400 in attorney fees and $50,000 in liquidated damages.

US Supreme Court: Public Employee Testimony Protected By First Amendment

On June 19, 2014, in Lane v. Franks, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled an employee’s testimony was protected by the First Amendment because it was a citizen’s speech on a matter of public concern.

Edward Lane directed a program for underprivileged youth at Central Alabama Community College. Lane audited the program’s expenses and found an employee, Suzanne Schmitz, had not been reporting for work. Lane terminated Schmitz’ employment and testified against her in federal court. Schmitz was sentenced to 30 months on charges of mail fraud and theft.

After the trial, the college’s president, Franks, fired 29 employees, including Lane. Franks claimed the action was an attempt to fix the college’s budget. He then rehired all but two of the employees. Franks did not rehire Lane.

In response, Lane filed a civil rights lawsuit. Lane claimed Franks violated the First Amendment by firing him in retaliation for testifying against Schmitz. If a public employee speaks in the course of their ordinary duties, the employee is not speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. But in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Lane’s sworn testimony was outside the scope of his normal duties and entitled to First Amendment protection.

The Court also ruled the testimony was on a matter of public concern.  If a public employee speaks on a matter of public concern, the government must have adequate justification for treating the employee differently. Whether speech is a matter of public concern turns on the content, form, and context of the speech.

Here, the Court held corruption in a public program and misuse of state funds are matters of significant public concern. Speech by public employees related to their employment holds special value because those employees gain knowledge of matters of public concern through their employment.

Because the Court ruled the testimony was a public concern, it then decided if the college lacked adequate justification for firing Lane. The college did not assert or demonstrate any government interest for their treatment of Lane. Therefore, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Ninth Circuit: Reporting Safety Concerns to Supervisor May Not Be Protected by First Amendment

In Hagen v. City of Eugene (9th Cir. 12-35492 12/3/13), the Court of Appeals held when an employee makes statements within the chain of command, regarding an issue of employment, and has a duty to make those statements, they do not first amendment protections.

Officer Hagen was a K-9 Officer who worked on the SWAT team. Over ten years, the SWAT team had 4 accidental discharges, two of which injured a fellow officer. Ofc. Hagen brought up his concerns about safety several times to his supervisor, Sgt. Eichorn, but no one told him of any proposed remedies. When Ofc. Hagen continued to press the issue, Sgt. Eichorn became irritated and annoyed. Then, the Department suspended the K-9 team two months and Ofc. Hagen was removed from the K-9 team permanently in retaliation.

Ofc. Hagen filed lawsuit, saying the Department retaliated against him for an exercise of his First Amendment right to free speech. But, the Ninth Circuit said when Hagen reported the Department safety concerns, he was acting as an employee, not a private citizen, and therefore had no First Amendment protections. The court based its decision on the Department being a highly hierarchical employment setting, and said his statements were within the chain of command concerning his employment and safety. Furthermore, Hagen was required to report all safety concerns under Human Resources Policies and Procedures. Therefore, Hagen’s speech was made within the employment setting, pursuant to a duty to do so, and was not protected by the first amendment.

This case was just about First Amendment protection.  Employees have additional protections when they concertedly complain or engage with their union about workplace issues.

Court: "Liking" Sheriff Candidate on Facebook Protected by First Amendment

In Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013, 12-1671) 2013 WL 5228033, the federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the act of "liking" a candidate for Sheriff on Facebook by a deputy sheriff is protected speech under the First Amendment. As a result, it is unlawful for a sheriff to retaliated against an employee for "liking" his opponent.

The case started when sheriff’s office employees brought a civil rights action alleging that the sheriff retaliated against them by reappointing them because of their support of his electoral opponent. Two of the employees expressed support for the Sheriff’s opponent by “liking” his Facebook page and posting comments of encouragement for his upcoming election. After the sheriff was reelected, he refused to reappoint the employees to their positions as sheriffs deputies at the jail, a typical process in that jurisdiction.

 They sued, claiming that the sheriff violated their First Amendment rights to free association and free speech. Initially, the District Court sided with the sheriff, finding merely “liking” a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

The Court of Appeal said when one “likes” a political campaign's Facebook page, the user becomes associated with the campaign. A photo of the user is posted to the campaign’s profile, a link is provided on the users profile that others can use to access with the campaign’s page, and the “thumbs up” icon communicates the user’s support. The Court said the act of “liking” the page is like displaying a political sign in one’s front yard, which the Supreme court has held as substantive speech.

Ninth Circuit: First Amendment Protects Peace Officer Labor Leaders from Retaliation

In Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre (Mar. 22, 2013) 2013 WL 1180299, the Court of Appeals ruled it is unconstitutional for an employer to retaliate against a peace officer union president for comments made as part of his role as union president.

The case involved John Ellins, a Sierra Madre police officer who led a no confidence vote of the police officers union against the Chief of Police, Marilyn Diaz. Then, Diaz delayed granting Ellins a certification that would result in a 5% raise. Ellins sued alleging the delay was an unconstitutional retaliation for the exercise of his first amendment rights. While waiting for the approval of his raise Ellins served a suspension he received years before. During the trial the city granted his pay-raise and backdated it to the date Ellins completed his suspension.

The court ruled Ellins is protected by the first amendment because comments made by a police officer acting as a union representative are not pursuant to the officers' official duties. Hence the officer is speaking as a private citizen. Furthermore, even though his pay-raise was backdated Ellins still suffered an “adverse employment action”. The court reasoned that an adverse employment action exists whenever any economic benefit is withheld for any amount of time.

The court then concluded that the proximity in time of the adverse employment action and the protected speech was enough to infer the possibility of retaliation. However, the court did not find retaliation on its own and ordered that a trial be held on the issue.