By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Yahnke v. Kane County, an Illinois deputy sheriff was terminated after he continued to hold a second job despite being asked to discontinue the work. The deputy sheriff believed the termination was due to his potential run for Sheriff and his political affiliation. The Seventh Circuit agreed, finding the deputy sheriff was entitled to a trial.
Steven Yahnke was a deputy sheriff with Kane County for over twenty years. Yahnke also worked as a part time police chief in the neighboring town of Maple Park. When the Sheriff of Kane County decided to retire and not seek reelection, Yahnke thought about running for Sheriff and expressed his interest to several people. Yahnke eventually decided not to run, and threw his support behind Kevin Williams, who ultimately lost to Patrick Perez.
Yahnke was later injured on the job and began to receive disability benefits. In light of this injury, Perez told Yahnke he could no longer hold his secondary position until he was able to come back to the Sheriff’s office. However, the Undersheriff allowed Yahnke to continue some duties as police chief of Maple Park, such as opening mail. Perez eventually asked the State Attorney whether Yahnke could even hold this position at all or whether it was a conflict of interest. The State Attorney determined it was a conflict of interest and Perez permanently revoked Yahnke’s authorization to work for Maple Park.
However, Perez was not done with Yahnke. Perez went on to accuse Yahnke of violating department rules by continuing in the police chief position and terminated his employment. Yahnke sued Kane County and Sheriff Perez, asserting that his termination was in retaliation for his First Amendment protected political affiliation and that he was terminated without due process.
The Seventh Circuit found for Yahnke on his First Amendment claim. The Court reasoned that even if Yahnke had disobeyed the department rules, lesser forms of discipline were available. Because Perez rejected these lesser sanctions in favor of termination, it would be reasonable to find that he did this because of Yahnke’s political affiliation. However, the Seventh Circuit did not agree with Yahnke that he had not received due process. The Court stated:
Yahnke could have had a hearing before the Merit Commission or he could have filed a grievance against his termination and proceeded to arbitration. But he waived the Merit Commission hearing when his union lawyer sent a letter to the Merit Commission, and then he failed to file a grievance that was adequate to challenge his termination. Due process was available; Yahnke simply failed to perfect his request for arbitration.
In summary, though the deputy sheriff could show retaliation, he was not able to prove he had been denied due process. This case demonstrates why it is so important to follow grievance procedures and make sure you do not inevitably end up waiving your rights.
This case highlights the important First Amendment protections of political speech. The First Amendment protects public employees, such as police officers and firefighters, from being terminated or demoted for supporting a particular political candidate, affiliating with a political party, or expressing political viewpoints.
Especially during a contentious election year, it is not uncommon for public employees to engage in political discourse in the workplace. Indeed, the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure that “debate on public issues…be uninhibited, robust, and wide open.”
As a result, government employees not only are, but should be permitted to speak freely on political matters of public concern. And an employer may not retaliate against its employees for speaking out on such political matters in the workplace.
