By: Jim Cline and Jordan L. Jones
In Kafka v. Grady, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the employer’s summary judgment motion against a former police officer and union president’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The court held that the timing of the officer’s union speech and his alleged deprivations were too attenuated to find that the union speech was a motivating factor behind any adverse employment action.
By: Jim Cline and Geoff Kiernan
In Federal Bureau of Prisons an arbitrator found that the Union failed to carry it burden of proof in proving that an Officer was “bullied” by his Commanding Officer, “Captain T.” The union attempted to prove that the Captain’s behavior should be seen as a precursor to work violence, which the CBA expressly states, cannot be tolerated. The agency however held that discipline is to be expected and the Officer was not singled by his superiors.
By: Jim Cline and Geoff Kiernan
In Allegheny County Jail, a Pennsylvania arbitrator found that the county violated its CBA when it expanded its random call provision to include officers with suspensions unrelated to violations of the Sick Leave Policy. The CBA provision at issue allowed management to randomly call any officer that called in sick to ascertain and/or confirm the illness or injury. But the random phone calls where only supposed to be made to an officer who has reached “suspension level” in the progressive disciplinary procedure.
By: Jim Cline and Jordan L. Jones
In Bello v. Village. of Skokie, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois denied the employers motion to dismiss a police officer and reserve marine’s suit under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA. The court held that the officer had stated a valid claim of discrimination and retaliation under USERRA warranting a trial.
By: Jim Cline and Jordan L. Jones
In Schmalz v. Village of. Riverside, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois dismissed a Police Union’s Presidents which hadalleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The officer alleged that the Village and its officials failed to promote him based on his union activity and endorsement of a former trustee for mayor in the Village election. The court held that the officer had “sufficiently proved a connection between the political activity and the failure to promote.
By: Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Lott v. Forrest County, a corrections officer sued the county sheriff’s department and her supervisors alleging she experienced a retaliatory transfer and was ultimately terminated following her testimony at a trial against her supervisors. A Mississippi district court found that the officer could survive a motion for summary judgment on her claim for First Amendment retaliation because her transfer and termination occurred after her testimony and because of her supervisors.
By: Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Hernandez v. City of San Jose, two police officers alleged they experienced adverse employment actions in violation of their First Amendment rights after one of the officers reported time sheet fraud. The City conceded the fraud reports were protected by the First Amendment but claimed there was no evidence that the report led to an “adverse action” against the officers. The Ninth Circuit rejected the City’s claim that was entitled to summary judgment, finding that unresolved issues existed that warranted a trial.
By: Jim Cline and Geoff Kiernan
In the City of Markham, an Illinois arbitrator ruled that the city violated its CBA by assigning members of specialty units (traffic detail, detectives, community service, etc.) to fulfil the minimum staffing requirements of four full-time patrol officers. This case because the contract provision at issue was not developed during bargaining decided in interest arbitration.
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that an Oregon police officer with ADHD could not qualify as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prevented him from asserting the ADA’s protections. In his lawsuit, the Officer alleged that the City violated the ADA by terminating him because of this ADHD. At trial, a jury agreed with him and awarded over $775,000 in damages, including back-pay and front-pay, as well as attorney’s fees. However, the Court of Appeals reviewed the case and overruled the verdict after determining that the Officer’s ADHD did not present symptoms that were severe enough to qualify as a disability under the ADA.
By Jim Cline and Geoff Kiernan
In County of Allegheny, 134 LA 134 (Heekin 2014) the arbitrator upheld a discharge of a corrections officer who used his sick time, rather than his vacation time, to travel to Dallas for a photo shoot for a body building magazine. The Officer’s participation was confirmed with posted pictures of his photo shoot on Facebook. The arbitrator found just cause for the Officer’s discharge given that the CBA stated that sick leave was “not a right of taking” such as vacation and the fact that a poor discipline record including a recent last chance agreement. The arbitrator rejected the Union’s claim that there was a “right” to use sick leave as if it was a form of vacation.
