In Their Opinion : Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

BIVENS v. TRENT (January 6, 2010)
 

In his position as an officer in the Illinois State Police, Jimmy Bivens was responsible for the operations of an indoor firing range. He performed his job well. He greatly improved the conditions at the range and was commended for his work. After a few months of working at the range, however, Bivens began to feel quite ill. He was concerned that his symptoms were related to lead exposure at the range. Blood tests revealed highly elevated levels of lead. Bivens filed a union grievance, alleging unsafe working conditions. Within days, the range was tested and closed for remediation. Bivens' blood lead levels returned to normal within a few weeks and he returned to work. He only worked for one week, however, claiming that he continued to experience health problems. The State Police arranged for independent examinations by a neurologist and psychiatrist. Both found Bivens' health to be normal and approved his return to work. The State Police terminated Bivens' disability benefits. Bivens brought suit pursuant to §1983, alleging that his superiors violated the First Amendment by retaliating against him for filing the union grievance. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that his speech was not protected because it was part of his official duties. Bivens appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Manion and Evans affirmed. One of the several elements of Bivens' §1983 claim is that he engaged in speech protected by the Constitution. The Court agreed with the district court that Bivens had an obligation, as part of his job, to report his concerns about lead contamination. It also agreed that any such reports to his superiors would not be protected under the Supreme Court's Garcetti decision. Here, however, the speech was not through Bivens' chain of command but as a union grievance. The Court was unwilling to conclude, because of the availability of an alternative holding, that the union grievance could not be protected speech. To be protected, the speech must also address a matter of public concern. The Court looked to the content, the context and the form to determine whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern. The court concluded that the context -- Bivens' own illness -- and the form -- an internal union grievance -- were more consistent with the vindication of a private, rather than a public, interest. Although the content referenced a subject of potential public interest, the Court concluded that Bivens was not attempting, by his speech, to bring this safety issue into the open. Being purely private, the speech was not protected and retaliation claim fails. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FAIRLEY v. ANDREWS (August 20, 2009

Fairley and Gackowski were employed as guards at the Cook County Jail. Both complained about their fellow guards' mistreatment of prisoners. After one particularly brutal incident, the affected prisoners filed suit. Fairley and Gackowski infuriated some of the other guards by their willingness to testify truthfully about their knowledge of the incident. They were both harassed and taunted, verbally and physically. Ultimately, they both quit. Fairley testified in a deposition a few weeks before he quit. Gackowski gave a deposition after he quit. Both testified at the trial, which resulted in a defense verdict. Fairley and Gackowski brought an action under § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated their free speech rights by assaulting them as a result of their willingness to report the abuse of prisoners and to testify truthfully. Shortly before trial, the district court ordered the exclusion of all evidence of events that occurred prior to the plaintiffs’ depositions. The judge reasoned that anything that occurred prior to their speech could not be considered as retaliation or punishment for that speech. Without that evidence, the guards accepted a dismissal. Fairley and Gackowski appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Wood affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court first clarified its jurisdiction, given the guards' acceptance of a dismissal after the court’s evidentiary ruling. The Court concluded that a party can decide that further pursuit of its case in the trial court is hopeless and accept a judgment against it in order to appeal. On the merits, the Court addressed both of plaintiffs' theories: that the defendants punished them for reporting defendants’ misconduct and that defendants taunted them to prevent their future testimony. On the first theory, the Court concluded that their claim was barred by Garcetti. Garcetti provides that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is part of one's job. Here, one guard’s report about another guard's conduct is part of the job. But Garcetti applies as against an employer - here, the defendants are coworkers. The Court concluded that it did not have to reach the coworker issue. The guards' Monell argument that the jail had a policy against reporting any guard misconduct linked the employer's liability and the coworker's liability. On the second theory of liability, however, the Court concluded that Garcetti did not control. The speech at issue in the second theory was the guards' testimony in the prisoners' trial. That speech is not part of the job. The Court concluded that Fairley and Gackowski could recover against a defendant who made threats that were designed to discourage their trial testimony.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Garcetti">Share Link

MILWAUKEE DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION v. CLARKE, JR. (July 21, 2009)

In mid-2005, possibly in response to public criticism of his use of police officers as escorts, Milwaukee County Sheriff Clarke posted a message on the department bulletin board: "If you are afraid or have lost your courage, you may go home, otherwise you will ruin the morale of others." Michael Schuh, a veteran police officer, was offended. He submitted a statement to the union newsletter: "If you are afraid or you have lost your courage and need two deputies and a sergeant to escort you every time you fly in and out of the airport and patrol deputies to drive by your house when you're out of town you should resign and go home! Then you would lift the morale of this whole department (a.k.a. office)." A few days later, Sheriff Clarke assigned Schuh to a newly-created patrol in the most dangerous part of the town -- in full uniform, without a partner, and without a car. At about the same time, Sheriff Clarke issued a revised departmental confidentiality policy. The policy required employees to keep "official agency business" confidential and not to speak on behalf of the department. Officer Schuh and the union brought suit, alleging violations of state law as well as First Amendment retaliation under § 1983. The suit also challenged the confidentiality policy as an unlawful prior restraint. The district court granted summary judgment to Sheriff Clarke on the federal claims. Schuh and the union appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner and Evans affirmed. The Court applied the three-step First Amendment retaliation analysis. The only step in dispute was whether Schuh's speech was constitutionally protected. To be protected, the speech must be of public concern. The Court considered the content, form and context of Schuh's statement. The Court noted that the form, a union newsletter, and the content, the Sheriff's abuse of department resources, could weigh in favor of constitutional protection. The context of the statement, however, led the Court in a different direction. The Court concluded that the context of the speech showed that it was a purely private matter. It did not focus on the fiscal repercussions of the Sheriff's conduct but rather on the personal impact of his original statement. Since the speech is not protected, Schuh's retaliation claim fails. With respect to the prior restraint claim, the Court first looked to whether the confidentiality policy applied to protected speech – i.e., the speech of a citizen on a matter of public concern. Since the policy on its face applied only to "official agency business," the Court concluded that it must apply only to speech related to an employee's professional duties. Since it did not regulate protected speech, it was not an unlawful prior restraint.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

TRIGILLO v. SNYDER (October 31, 2008)

The Illinois Department of Corrections (“Department”) created a new position in 1999 dedicated to procurement matters. The Department hired Tracy Trigillo, an attorney, into the position. Her responsibilities included managing the Department’s contracting, purchasing, leasing, and inventories. She advised department officials on legal matters. She also was responsible for ensuring that contracts were properly bid and in compliance with the Illinois Procurement Act. From early in her employment, Trigillo had concerns about the Department’s procurement practices. She frequently advised her superiors of her concerns, with little effect. In late 2000, she drafted a report that summarized many of her concerns. The report was addressed to the Department of Central Management Services (“CMS”), an agency that provided procurement support to other state agencies. Trigillo also sent the report to the state Attorney General (“AG”). The report contained some allegations of misconduct, although it was principally addressed to policy disputes. Also in 2000, one of Trigillo’s staff members told her that Department officials had rigged the bid of a contract to benefit a friend of the governor. Although the incident predated Trigillo’s tenure in the Department, she was responsible for monitoring an extension of the contract. She reported the information to the FBI but did not advise her superiors that she had done so. When her term of employment was up for renewal in late 2001, the Department chose not to renew. Although she had received acceptable performance reviews during her tenure, her supervisor stated that her approach to procurement principles was “over-zealous” and that she was not a team player. Trigillo brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that she was non-renewed in retaliation for her reports of misconduct. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court separated her speech into three categories. The court held that: a) her routine communications with her superiors were part of her normal job duties and not as a citizen speaking out on matters of public interest, b) her CMS report referred principally to policy disputes and, to the extent it did raise matters of public interest, the Department’s interest in effective operations outweighed Trigillo’s interest as a citizen, and c) her report of misconduct to the FBI was constitutionally protected but there was no evidence that the person who decided not to renew her contract knew about it. Trigillo appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Evans, and Williams affirmed. The Court first observed that the district court entered judgment just prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos. Garcetti reaffirmed the limitations imposed by the First Amendment on a public employer’s ability to restrict the “liberties employees enjoy in their capacities as private citizens.” The role of the Court is to determine whether the speech is that of an employee doing her job or that of a private citizen reporting on a matter of public interest. Garcetti requires an inquiry into whether the speech in question relates to the employee’s official obligations, even the more general ones. Trigillo conceded on appeal that her routine communications did not meet the Garcetti standard. The Court addressed the other two categories. The Court rejected defendants’ argument that the CMS report was per se “official” because it was required by statute. The Court noted that the statutory duty was very broad and applied to all employees. Instead of looking at a broad duty, the Court looked at the speech at issue and the responsibilities of the employee. The Court held that the CMS report did not meet the Garcetti standard. The report: a) made no “accusations”, b) sought “guidance” on procurement issues, c) was written on Department letterhead, d) was signed by Trigillo in her official capacity, and e) offered her group’s resources to any investigation. The Court held that the report fit squarely within Trigillo’s responsibilities of managing the procurement practices of the Department. With respect to the FBI report, the Court agreed with the district court that Trigillo had presented no evidence that the decision-maker even knew that she made the report. It could not have been the reason for her non-renewal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Garcetti">Share Link