Some of the case digests do not have a link to the full opinion.
• Cases that have a Westlaw citation can be retrieved, for a fee, via Internet.
• Most Federal District Court opinions can be accessed via PACER. Registration is required; nominal fees
• BNA arbitration awards can be obtained for a fee, from BNA Plus
• Some of our links are to cases on the FindLaw website. Registration is required; no fees.

Civil Service

     The U.S. government fired a number of employees of executive branch agencies under a statute barring such employment of persons who knowingly and willfully failed to register for the Selective Service as required by law. The employees sued, claiming that the law under which they were fired was an unconstitutional bill of attainder and also amounted to sex discrimination, since only males were required to register for Selective Service. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1101 et seq. barred the federal district courts from deciding the case. The employees needed to bring their claim before the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), despite that board's professed lack of authority to decide constitutional questions, and could then seek review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Elgin v. Dept. of Treasury, #11-45,183 L. Ed. 2d 1, 2012 U.S. Lexis 4461.

Disability Rights and Benefits - Line of Duty Related/Disputed

     A county welfare department employee claimed that his panic disorder, a disabling psychiatric condition, was service connected. The county, nevertheless, properly denied him a service-connected disability retirement. because his doctors' supporting reports were based on the employee's own uncorroborated self-reporting of his panic attacks. A fact finder could discount those reports. The employee did make around 30 visits to hospital emergency rooms for the attacks, which he claimed were triggered by his job experiences with angry clients. Whether or not he believed that, the evidence showed that only five panic attacks occurred before or on his last day on the job. He failed to satisfy his burden of showing a measurable and real connection between his permanent psychiatric disability and his job. The medical records were also "remarkably devoid" of any mention of supposed conflicts with angry clients. Valero v. Board of Retirement of Tulare County Employees' Retirement Ass'n, #F062601. 205 Cal. App. 4th 960; 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 103; 2012 Cal. App. Lexis 522 (5th Dist.).

First Amendment

     Corrections officers claimed that they were unlawfully retaliated against for exercising their First Amendment rights. One of the officers had complained that a superintendent and assistant superintendent had discriminated against him and embarrassed him, while the second filed an EEOC complaint charging race and religious discrimination. Subsequently, they were terminated for disciplinary violations, but the penalties were later reduced to suspensions. Both officers' complaints were of an individualized nature. The First Amendment claims were without merit, as the speech involved concerned the making of complaints about their job duties with their employer's internal grievance procedure, and did not relate to matters of public concern. Brooks v. Arthur, #11-1899, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 13927 (9th Cir.).

     The First Amendment prohibits a public employee union from increasing political activity fees for non-consenting nonmembers who are required to pay certain union dues. The special assessment or dues increase was imposed to raise funds for the political purpose of fighting state efforts to reduce public employee pay. These expenses were not disclosed when the regular assessment was set, so the union should have sent out a special notice to inform the non-members of them and should refrain from collecting such funds without the non-members' consent. Knox v. Service Employees International Union, #10-1121, 132 S. Ct. 2156, 2012 U.S. Lexis 4663.

Handicap/Abilities Discrimination - Psychiatric

     A state transportation employee suffered from severe psychological disorders, including bipolar disorder, psychosis, and schizoaffective disorder. These conditions led to volatile strife with her employer, which wanted to terminate her. She claimed that she had been harassed and passed over for promotion. She was given disability retirement as part of a negotiated settlement. She later tried to be reinstated, and claimed that the refusal to rehire her constituted disability discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sought damages for that discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. A federal appeals court held that she could not seek such damages since Congress had not abrogated the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages based on such claims. Further, since Title I of the ADA has a comprehensive remedial scheme, a damage claim under Sec. 1983 is barred. She also failed to establish an equal protection claim, as she could not show that she was treated differently than other similarly situated persons. Okwu v. McKim, #11-15369, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 11874 (9th Cir.).

Health Insurance & Benefits

****Editor's Case Alert****

     The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the individual health insurance purchase mandate of the health care reform legislation popularly known as Obamacare. While rejecting the notion that such a mandate could be imposed under the Commerce clause, it ruled that it could be upheld under the power of Congress to impose a tax. The consequence of failing to purchase health insurance under the law is the imposition of a tax penalty collected by the IRS. A portion of the law expanding the Medicaid program, however, was unconstitutional in threatening states with the termination of their present Medicaid funding if they do not implement the planned expansion. National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, #11-363, 2012 U.S. Lexis 4876.

Pay Disputes - In General

     Just before a Naval Criminal Investigative Service employee was to be transferred from California to Washington, D.C., she submitted a questionnaire to serve on a California state grand jury, and was chosen to serve for a year. The Navy allowed her to serve and paid her salary under a federal statute, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6322(a). It instructed her, however, not to reapply for another term on the grand jury. She did, however, and was appointed to serve for a second one-year term. The Navy then placed her on AWOL status and withheld her pay, subsequently terminating her. A federal appeals court held that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) erred in rejecting her claims for back pay on the basis that she had not been "summoned" for grand jury duty for the second year but sought it voluntarily. The CFC did not, however, have jurisdiction to hear her wrongful termination claim. Hall v. U.S., #2011-5119, 677 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Race and Sex Discrimination

     A male Cuban-American was not selected for a job with the Library of Congress Office of Diversity which was given to a female African-American applicant. He sued under Title VII, claiming race, sex, and national origin discrimination. After a jury found for the defendant employer, he appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that it had to find that discrimination was the "sole reason" for his non-selection in order to hold for him. He argued that "sole reason" was the wrong legal standard. The federal appeals court agreed that the term "sole reason" should not have been used, but upheld the jury verdict on the basis that "sole reason" had been further defined for them in the instructions as the "but for" cause. With that definition, the instructions adequately conveyed the law. Ponce v. Billington, #11-5117, 679 F.3d 840 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

Race or Sex Discrimination - Disparate Discipline

****Editor's Case Alert****

     An African-American police officer was terminated after he blew the whistle on a detective and fellow officer in connection with a missing persons investigation he assisted them in, and in which the three of them failed to arrest two suspects or collect certain evidence in what later turned into a murder prosecution. The detective and other officer, both of whom are Caucasian were only recommended for suspension by the same Internal Affairs investigation that resulted in his firing. A jury awarded him $3.5 million on a whistleblowing claim, $2.5 million on as a breach of contract claim, and $500,000 (half compensatory and half punitive damages) on a race discrimination claim for the disparate discipline. An intermediate state appeals court overturned the whistleblowing and contractual awards, while upholding the race discrimination disparate discipline award. The city was protected from the whistleblowing claim by sovereign immunity, since whistleblowing is a tort rather than contract cause of action. As for the contract claim; it was based on statute saying that non-probationary officers can only be fired for cause, the court found that it was not a "contract." Holmes v. Kansas City Bd. of Police Cmsnrs., #WD72852, 364 S.W.3d 615, 2012 Mo. App. Lexis 133.

Retirement Rights and Benefits

     City employees hired between July 1, 2005 and February 16, 2007 appealed a summary judgment in favor of the city which upheld an ordinance that made them ineligible to receive certain ancillary retirement benefits known as the "Four Benefits." The Four Benefits are a "13th retirement check," payable when there are excess earnings in the retirement system at the end of the year; a Deferred Retirement Option Drop, an alternative method of benefit accrual; the right to purchase up to five years of additional service credits; and retiree medical health benefits.

     The appeals court upheld the ruling below. It found that the ordinance's retroactivity did not violate the U.S. or state Constitutions, did not violate the city charter or state law, and that the defendant employees had not obtained any vested rights to the benefits. Because of that, they were not classified as members of the city employees retirement system and no vote was required under the terms of the city charter. The court also found that the retroactive ordinance only altered the city's laws to conform to existing agreements with employees on benefits modification. City of San Diego v. Haas, #D058225, 2012 Cal. App. Lexis 763 (4th Dist.).

• Contents menu.

• Report non-working links here

     Police Management: "Revolutionizing Policing Through Servant-Leadership and Quality Management," by Bill Gardner and John Reece, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (June 2012).

Reference:

• Abbreviations of laws, law reports and agencies used in our publications.
• AELE’s list of employment law resources

Report non-working links here

AELE Seminars:

Lethal and Less Lethal Force
Oct. 15-17, 2012 – Las Vegas

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Dec. 10-12, 2012 - Las Vegas

Jail Liability – Administrative Issues
(Diet, mail, religion, classification, etc.)
Jan. 14-16, 2013 - Las Vegas

Jail Liability – Incident Liability
(In-custody deaths, use of force, extractions, etc.)
Mar. 4-6, 2013 - Las Vegas

 Search the Case Law Digest