By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Smith v. City of Inkster, a U.S. District Court determined that a police officer stated a plausible claim against the City of Inkster, Michigan, and its Mayor and allowed the lawsuit to proceed to trial. In his lawsuit, the Officer claimed that the City retaliated against him by denying his application for disability benefits after he filed a lawsuit. After the City moved for a judgment against the Officer’s lawsuit before trial, the Court determined that the Officer had presented direct evidence supporting his claims and that he deserved to present his case at trial.
The City of Inkster hired Kevin Smith, a Caucasian police officer, in 1995. Officer Smith was eventually promoted to lieutenant. In 2007, Lieutenant Smith testified in a trial against the City where an officer claimed he had been passed over for a promotion based on his Hispanic ethnicity. The Hispanic officer succeeded in his lawsuit. After that event, Lieutenant Smith began to experience difficulties at the department in his capacity as acting lieutenant. Specifically, he had trouble getting training for employees, payment or reimbursements for bills, and approval of reassignments or transfers. Later, in 2008, the City’s Chief of Police decided to reorganize the department. As a result, the narcotics department was disbanded and its officers were assigned to different departments. Additionally, the Chief informed Lieutenant Smith that he would be reassigned from the detective bureau to the road bureau. He would still be a lieutenant and receive the same pay, but he would lose his office, an assistant, and a daytime schedule. Later that year, the Lieutenant filed a lawsuit against the City for race discrimination and violation of whistleblower protection laws. He won his lawsuit and was awarded a judgment for $825,000.
Prior to the conclusion of that lawsuit, the Lieutenant also requested a duty disability pension from the retirement system. Several doctors had determined that the combination of two heart attacks, surgery, and the added stress of the transfer made it dangerous for the Lieutenant to return to work. The City was presented with three letters from these physicians detailing their findings. After the judgment in the lawsuit was awarded in favor of the Lieutenant, the City informed the Officer that he would also need to submit to the examination of another physician and psychiatrist. The City selected these doctors, who in turn determined that the Lieutenant was not totally and permanently disabled. The City then requested that the Lieutenant submit to an additional examination from a third physician, but for some reason this additional examination never occurred. Based on the opinions of the doctors it had selected, the City denied the Lieutenant’s request for a duty disability pension.
The Lieutenant then filed his lawsuit, claiming that the denial of his benefits was in retaliation for his prior lawsuit against the City for discrimination and retaliation. In order to support his claim, he offered the testimony of multiple city employees. The City Mayor had told one of these employees that the Lieutenant would get nothing because he sued the city. Another employee stated plainly that “if Smith had not sued the City of Inkster previously, he would have received his pension… [The] Mayor told me directly that he did not want him to get his pension because he sued the City.” Despite this testimony, however, the City argued that the only reason that it declined to award benefits to the Lieutenant was because he had failed to submit to the examination of a third physician.
The Court explained that, to be successful in his lawsuit, the Lieutenant would need to show that (1) he engaged in a protected activity, (2) the City knew about the activity, (3) the City took adverse employment action against him, and (4) the adverse action was in response to the protected activity. Also, although the City could defend itself by providing a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, the Lieutenant would have the opportunity to show that the reason proffered by the City was just a pretext for retaliation.
The Court started its evaluation by explaining that the Lieutenant had shown evidence to support each of the elements necessary for a successful claim. Specifically, the Court stated:
“Here, [the Lieutenant] has demonstrated that he engaged in protected activity by filing the WCCC case alleging discrimination, of which [the City] was aware. He has also shown an adverse employment action because material loss of benefits constitutes an adverse employment action… A plaintiff may establish the requisite causal connection either directly or indirectly… Here, contrary to [the City]’s arguments, there is direct evidence of retaliatory animus directed against [the Lieutenant] by [the Mayor].”
The Court continued, stating that even though the City claimed that it had a legitimate reason for denying the benefits, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the Lieutenant’s failure to be examined by a third physician was just pretext for a retaliatory action. It explained:
“[T]here are questions of fact as to whether this reason is merely pretext… The [City]’s attorney admitted that the board engaged in deselecting certain doctors to conduct the third physician’s examination… Lastly, there is evidence to suggest that the board’s decision is not its usual course of practice in determining eligibility for duty disability benefits. Plaintiff has presented evidence that African American police and fire employees have been awarded their duty disability pensions without demonstrating entitlement to such benefits with documented medical records, yet the [City] has imposed different requirements for awarding benefits to [Smith], a Caucasian officer who previously filed a discrimination claim.”
Under these facts, the Court decided that the Lieutenant had presented a potential case of retaliation by the City and its Mayor. As a result, it determined that the Lieutenant was entitled to present these facts at trial so that they could be weighed and judged by a jury.
The Michigan Court made the right decision in this case because the Lieutenant had pretty compelling facts to support his claim. While the City had a right to have him examined by its own physicians, there was compelling evidence that the Lieutenant was indeed disabled. Moreover, while an employer may have the right to order an officer to undergo a fitness for duty examination or other medical examination (under the terms of the labor contract or other policy), an employer should not be permitted to use this process in an abusive or harassing manner. Finally, as is often the case with retaliation claims, timing is everything. The fact the City denied him a disability pension while he was in litigation with the City is compelling evidence of retaliation.
