By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In McGunigle v. City of Quincy, a former Massachusetts police officer filed suit against the City of Quincy, Chief of Police, and Captain. In his suit, the officer alleged that he was wrongfully disciplined, and eventually terminated, by the department for making comments to local news organizations concerning violations of city dog ordinances infringing on his First Amendment Rights. The officer filed an additional claim of defamation against the Chief of Police for statements he made to the local newspaper. The district court found that the department’s interest in maintaining order and obedience of their officers in a public arena outweighed the officer’s interest in speech. The Court further found that the defamation claim failed because the statements did not rise to the level of malice.
Joseph McGunigle became a patrol officer with the Quincy Police Department in 1997. Between 1998 and 2005, McGunigle was disciplined multiple times for varying types of violations. The discipline included oral reprimands, written reprimands, suspension from details, restrictions on police activities, and a five-day suspension without pay.
However, the issues giving rise to McGunigle’s claims began in 2006, when he and his wife moved to a new home. Soon after their arrival, the McGunigle’s began noticing their neighbor’s violations of city dog ordinances. McGunigle first reported his neighbor’s conduct to Animal Control and, after finding Animal Control’s response to be dissatisfactory, began to issue citations to his neighbors himself. After receiving these citations, McGunigle’s neighbor’s complained to the department and he was suspended for five days.
Shortly thereafter, a local news station aired a report concerning the lack of enforcement of the city dog ordinances and McGunigle’s actions and suspension. McGunigle was interviewed out of uniform stating that he was “…just doing his job…trying to make the neighborhood safe…” McGunigle was also quoted in a later Boston Globe article stating, “I paid $620,000 for this oceanfront home and I’m not letting dogs [defecate] on my yard.” A few years past with continuing instances of confrontation between McGunigle and his neighbors. The final incident occurred when McGunigle lost his license to carry a firearm and was ultimately terminated.
McGunigle filed his complaint alleging that the City, Chief, and Captain had taken adverse employment actions against him in retaliation for the exercise of his constitutional right of free speech. McGunigle argued that: (1) his appearance on a news segment; (2) statements he made to the Boston Globe; and (3) reports he made about dog-ordinance violations; were all protected and were the reason for his loss of firearm and termination.
The Court declined to decide whether or not McGunigle was speaking as a citizen or public official when he made these comments. Instead, the Court reasoned that McGunigle failed to show that his interest in speech and maintaining a cleanly neighborhood overrode the Police Departments strong interests in maintaining obedience, loyalty, discipline, and the perception of fairness, the balance must be struck decisively in favor of the police department. Additionally, the Court found that McGunigle could not show that the statements made by the Chief of Police rose to the level of malice required for his defamation claim.
In summary, the district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on both the First Amendment claim, as well as the defamation claim. The Court found that the governments strong interest in maintaining order overrode the officer’s speech rights and that statements made against the officer were not malicious.
There is no question that McGunigle’s prior disciplinary history and misconduct did not garner any favors with the court and created the first strike against him.
Even though courts are required to be fair and impartial, there is no denying the fact that many courts will look unfavorably upon “problem” employees. So even if an employee has a fairly strong case of wrongdoing against the employer, that strength will be somewhat dampened by an employee’s poor performance or disciplinary issues.
The second strike against McGunigle arose when the court weighed the department’s interest in maintaining obedience, loyalty, discipline, and perception of fairness much higher than McGunigle’s interest in speaking out on the dog ordinances and clean neighborhoods.
The fact that McGunigle’s speech arose because of his own personal disdain for his neighbor’s dog’s toileting habits rather than some overarching public interest or concern likely also persuaded the court to rule in favor of the department.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on The Right to Free Speech . **
