By: Jim Cline & Harrison Owens
In Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1, et al. v. City of Camden, et al., a New Jersey District Court dismissed several officers’ claims that they had been retaliated against, and one officer’s claim that his FMLA rights had been denied by the City. In their complaint, the officers claimed that several defendants had retaliated against them or interfered with their FMLA rights after they spoke out against a “directed patrol” policy. The District Court dismissed all of their claims because the officers failed to show that their poor performance under the policy was not the primary reason for their transfers. The Court also found that there was no evidence that the defendants denied one of the officers his rights under the FMLA or harmed him.
Officers John Williamson, Anthony Galiazzi, and Charles Holland filed a complaint against the City of Camden and other defendants, claiming that the defendants imposed an unlawful quota policy on Camden City police officers, and that they had been retaliated against for speaking against it. The policy concerned “directed patrols,” which were a police investigative tactic that required police officers to patrol targeted crime “hot spots” in an effort to concentrate police presence in problematic areas of the city.
The officers claimed that the directed patrol policy constituted an impermissible “quota” system. Holland and Galiazzi were later moved to other positions for being “low performers” under the policy, which they claimed was in retaliation for their criticism of the policy. During this time, Holland claimed that his FMLA rights were violated because he was cited for excessive absences despite receiving approval to take intermittent leave to care for his mother, who had breast cancer.
The District Court dismissed all of the claims brought by the officers. First, the Court found that Holland and Galiazzi did not have a valid claim for retaliation against the City. The Court found that both officers had failed to comply with the policy, and had been verbally counselled and given written warnings prior to their transfers. Although the officers claimed that the primary reason for their transfers was their criticism of the policy, the Court determined that they had actually been transferred because of their poor performance. The Court stated that their superiors had given them repeated warnings about their poor performance and the officers themselves had said they would improve their performance. In addition, the Court found that Galiazzi’s claim that he had been placed on the “abuse of sick time” list was not related to his criticism of the policy, and therefore was not retaliation. Therefore, the Court found that the defendants had a legitimate reason to transfer the officers, which was not retaliation.
The Court also found that the officers did not have a valid claim against the City for violation of their First Amendment rights relating to their criticism of the directed patrol policy. The Court noted that the officers’ criticisms may have been about a matter of public concern (the directed patrol policy). However, the Court found that the officers did not show that their speech was the reason for their transfers. Instead, as noted above, the Court found that their poor performance under the policy was the primary cause of their transfers. Therefore, the Court found that they did not have a valid claim against the City for violation of their First Amendment rights.
The District Court also found that Officer Holland did not have valid claims under the FMLA for interference with his statutory rights. Holland claimed that the defendants interfered with his FMLA rights by visiting him at home, placing him on the “chronic sick” category for his use of intermittent FMLA leave to care for his mother, and telling him he was using too much sick time. To have a valid claim for interference, an employee must show that the employer interfered with, restrained, or denied his or her exercise of FMLA rights, and harmed the employee. The District Court found that Holland did not show that he was denied or prevented from using his FMLA time, or otherwise harmed by the defendants’ actions.
In summary, the District Court dismissed all of the officers’ claims. The Court found that none of the officers had proven that the defendants retaliated against them because they did not show that their transfers were caused by their criticism of the directed patrol policy, and they had received multiple prior warnings about their poor performance under the policy. Also, Officer Holland did not have a valid claim for interference with his FMLA rights because he did not show that he was denied from using FMLA leave or harmed by the defendants denying him his rights. Therefore, the District Court dismissed all of the officers’ claims.
In retaliation cases, the Plaintiff must prove causation, or a connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. In this case, the Plaintiffs could not prove retaliation because they could not establish a connection between their speech against the “directed patrol” policy and their transfer. One Plaintiff did not establish interference of his FMLA rights because he could not prove that he was denied FMLA benefits or suffered any “other harm”. In this district, a Plaintiff need not prove that he was “otherwise harmed” if he can show that his employer denied or interfered with his FMLA benefits.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Family Medical Leave Act and Speech Which Occurs in the Workplace.**
