Monthly Law Journal Article: Picketing Rights of Public Employees, 2007 (11) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Regulation of an Employee's Off-Duty Activities Part Three- Participating in Unapproved Training Programs and/or Membership in Controversial Organizations or Events, 2008 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.

     A police chief was entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit brought by a police officer claiming that he faced retaliation for various instances of speech critical of the chief's competence. The officer was both a member of and an officer of the police union. A federal appeals court ruled that it was not clearly established that a city police officer's speech as a union officer attacking the chief of police's competence as chief outweighed the chief's governmental interest in effective administration of the department. Lynch v. Ackley, #14-3751, 811 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2016).
     A deputy sheriff called into a talk radio program and stated that the current sheriff was not a good fit for the job. In response, the sheriff called in and replied that the deputy was a "slacker," and made statements about the deputy's disciplinary record, saying it involved sexual harassment of another employee, when it actually involved violation of a rule against offensive conduct or language. The deputy sued the sheriff for unlawful retaliation against him for exercising his First Amendment rights in criticizing the sheriff. A federal appeals court rejected this claim, because "(w)e cannot afford one party his right to free speech while discounting the rights of the other party." The appeals court also rejected claims that the sheriff, in making the statements about the deputy's alleged disciplinary record, violated Wisconsin laws concerning privacy and open public records. The open records statute did not apply, as there was no actual release of a public record. As for privacy, the court found that there was no genuine public interest in keeping the record of the concluded disciplinary investigation closed to the public.  Hutchins v. Clarke, #10-2661, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 21475  (7th Cir.)
     A police officer who alleged that he was fired because he made comments on the Internet concerning firearms and criticizing the borough council could pursue a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit. He contended that his discussions and research on the weapons issues were carried out on his own time, and that the issues involved concerned the safety of police officers, and whether officers had sufficient weaponry. If true, then he spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern, which would constitute protected First Amendment activity for which he could not be fired. Beyer v. Duncannon Borough, #10-3042, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7793 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     A police officer's report of an allegedly improper relationship between other officers was not protected speech under the First Amendment, because the officer spoke pursuant to his official duties. Platt v. Vil. of Southampton, #09-4395-civ, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18202 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
    First Circuit declines to overturn the 15-day suspension given a fire chief, who made public statements about inadequate funding and staffing. Although he spoke on a matter of public concern, he was in uniform and on duty at the time. He had media attention because of his position and was not speaking as a citizen. Foley v. Town of Randolph, #09-1558, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 5020 (1st Cir.).
     The First Amendment does not immunize a person for using a website to solicit acts of retaliatory violence against a juror. U.S. v. White, #09-2916, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13166 (7th Cir.).
     First Circuit upholds a 15-day disciplinary suspension of a fire chief for public statements he made at the scene of a fatal fire. He was speaking in his official capacity and not as a citizen when he addressed budgetary and staffing shortfalls in the department. Foley v. Town of Randolph, #09-1558, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 5020 (1st Cir.).
     A public employee's motive "is not dispositive in determining whether his or her speech addresses a matter of public concern." Relying on the Garcetti decision, speech on a purely private matter, such as an employee's dissatisfaction with the conditions of his employment, does not pertain to a matter of public concern. Sousa v. Roque, #07-1892-cv, 578 F.3d 164, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18844, 29 IER Cases (BNA) 1042 (2d Cir.).
     Relying on Garcetti v. Ceballos, #04-473 547 U.S. 410 (2006), California appellate panel affirms the termination of a county law librarian after he sent a scathing e-mail criticizing his superiors. If a public employee makes statements pursuant to official job duties, the employee is not speaking as a private citizen and lacks First Amendment protections. Kaye v. Board of Trustees of the San Diego Co. Law Library. #D053644, 179 Cal.App.4th 48, 29 IER Cases (BNA) 1826, 2009 Cal. App. Lexis 180 (4th Dist. 2009).
     Federal court rejects a free speech claim brought by a terminated police employee. She continued to disrupt the workplace after the police chief had been exonerated of misconduct, which created disharmony. Iglesias v. Wolford, #5:07-CV-437, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 104402 (E.D.N.C.).
     Seventh Circuit affirms the dismissal of a suit, challenging an alleged disciplinary transfer, of a deputy who wrote a humiliating public comment about the sheriff. While the deputy spoke as a citizen, the content of the message was not a matter of public concern. Milwaukee Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. Clarke, #08-3298, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16082 (7th Cir.).
     In rejecting an appeal brought by a federal air marshal who was terminated for improper media disclosures, the MSPB finds that the Congress entrusted the Transportation Security Administration to define and determine what is "sensitive security information." MacLean v. Dept. of Homeland Security, #SF-0752-06-0611-I-2, 2009 MSPB 114, 2009 MSPB Lexis 3471 (2009).
     Reversing the trial court, the Sixth Circuit reinstates a free speech action brought by a police union official that lost 60 days pay for issuing a seven-page press release critical of the chief. Issuing the press release was outside of the plaintiff’s duties as a police officer, the press release did not disrupt the agency’s effectiveness or impair working relationships. Miller v. City of Canton, #08-3163, 2009 U.S. App. Lexus 8370 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     Nebraska Supreme Court overturns disciplinary action against a police officer who criticized the city’s methods of handling 911 cases in a union publication. The statements, while intemperate, abusive and insulting rhetorical hyperbole, it fell short of deliberate or reckless untruthfulness. “Flagrant misconduct includes, but is not limited to, statements or actions that (1) are of an outrageous and insubordinate nature, (2) compromise the public employer’s ability to accomplish its mission, or (3) disrupt discipline.” Omaha Police Union Local 101, IUPA v. City of Omaha, #S-07-1245, 276 Neb. 983, 2009 Neb. Lexis 1.
     Ninth Circuit rejects a whistleblower claim raised by a terminated air marshal. He revealed to the media the contents of a DHS decision to suspend air marshal protection for overnight flights. The Whistleblower Protection Act did not apply to the TSA staffing decision because it was not a personnel action. Mac Lean v. Dept. Homeland Security, #04-17050, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 19618 (9th Cir.).
     Federal court rejects a First Amendment challenge to the termination of a volunteer firefighter after he wrote a letter to the U.S. Fire Administration complaining about inadequate funding. His letter alleged that a neighboring agency received funding for a fire truck that it didn't need and that another had misappropriated funds. The disclosures had a damaging effect on his own department's working relationship with nearby agencies. McClernon v. Beaver Dams VFD, #05-CV-6257T, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38029 (W.D.N.Y.).
     "Pennsylvania law allows an employer to implement a chain of command policy to regulate the time, manner, and place of expression. ... The chain of command policy regulating procedures to follow when making complaints of improper conduct by fellow officers and superiors is necessary for the orderly and efficient operation of paramilitary organizations, such as the [city's] Police Department." Day v. Civil Service Cmsn. of Bor. of Carlisle, 550 C.D. 2005, 2008 Pa. Commw. Lexis 207.
     Seventh Circuit overturns a judgment for $210,000 in compensatory and $150,000 in punitive damages, awarded to a State Police lieutenant that was laterally transferred because of his criticism of a case and filing an internal complaint. His statements and reports were made pursuant to his official duties, and not as a citizen. Callahan v. Fermon, #05-4313, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10800 (7th Cir.).
     First Circuit sustains the termination of a correction officer, who on a union website, identified the sheriff as Hitler, correctional officers as Jews, and he department's commanders as Nazi generals. "Because of the special degree of trust and discipline required in a police force there may be a stronger governmental interest in regulating the speech of police officers than in regulating the speech of other governmental employees. Curran v. Cousins, #07-1686, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28029 (1st Cir.) affirming 482 F.Supp.2d 36 (D.Mass.).
     Michigan appeals court agrees with the state's Employment Relations Commission that management violated an officer's right to free speech for terminating him because he maintained a website critical of the police chief, www.firejerryo.com City of Detroit v. DPOA (Bennett), #268278, 2007 Mich. App. Lexis 2734 (unpub. 2007); also see 274 Mich. App. 307, 732 N.W.2d 164 (2006).
     Fifth Circuit rejects a suit filed by a terminated Houston police officer who alleged retaliation and First Amendment violations. The First Amendment did not protect his "caustic, offensive, and disrespectful" statements and magazine articles. He was not speaking as a citizen and identified himself as a police officer; he discussed his police-related activities and policies and undermined discipline and public confidence in the Dept. Nixon v. City of Houston, #07-20162, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29389 (5th Cir.).
     Seventh Circuit holds that a police officer engaged in protected speech when he gave a deposition in a lawsuit brought by demoted coworker. Morales v. Jones, #06-1463, 494 F.3d 590, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16936, 23 IER Cases (BNA) 555 (7th Cir.).
     It was a question of fact as to whether a state trooper's reporting of potentially unlawful conduct by a superior was protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (2006) does not compel summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiff's retaliation claim. Paola v. Spada, #03CV1628, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 58154 (D.Conn.), on remand from 204 Fed. Appx. 946, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28219 (2d Cir.).
     Third Circuit rejects a free speech claim by trooper/instructors at a state police firing range who complained of hazardous conditions. They were speaking pursuant to their official duties when they complained through the chain of command and when they gave statements to the State Auditor. Foraker v. Chaffinch, #06-4086, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20739 (3rd Cir.).
     Federal court dismisses a suit filed by a demoted firefighter because the illegality of the chief's retaliatory action would not necessarily have been clear to a reasonable government official at the time. The firefighter spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern when he revealed that the chief had a Confederate flag tattoo in violation of the department's policy. Hartwell v. City of Montgomery, #2:06cv518, 487 F.Supp.2d 1313, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 34271 (M.D. Ala.).
     Federal appeals court concludes that a jury could infer that the fire chief's repeated decisions not to promote an outspoken firefighter were in part motivated by her protected activities in opposing fire station closures. Davison v. City of Minneapolis, #06-2368, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14459 (8th Cir. 2007).
     Seventh Circuit rejects a retaliation claim in a First Amendment action, where a gangs task force police officer alleged he was denied promotions because he complained to superiors that some officers might be tipping off suspects. His speech was not made outside of his capacity as an investigator and a task force member, so he was not speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, # 05-4143, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12204 (7th Cir.).
     Correctional officer did not have a First Amendment right to post comments on a website comparing the sheriff to Adolph Hitler. The comments did not involve matters of public concern and were so insubordinate and disruptive of morale in the sheriff's department that his termination was justified. Curran v. Cousins, #06-10562, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25930 (D. Mass.).
     Seventh Circuit reverses a $210,000 verdict awarded to a corrections officer who claims retaliatory action. "The speech at issue here is a complaint [the plaintiff] made about having been prevented by her immediate supervisor from investigating a possible security breach while she was on duty and stationed at the prison's main gate. ... [She] was speaking not as a citizen but as a correctional officer charged with the duty to ensure the prison's safety and security. Accordingly, the First Amendment does not insulate her statements from employer discipline, and the judgment in her favor must be vacated." Spiegla v. Hull, #05-3722, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7396, 25 IER Cases (BNA) 1508 (7th Cir.).
     Federal appeals court rejects a First Amendment claim brought by a former university police captain that was fired after making allegations of intoxication against the chief of police. His speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made pursuant to his official and professional duties, and not as a private citizen. Bradley v. James, #06-2283, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 4781 (8th Cir. 2007), relying on Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 at 1960 (2006).
     Massachusetts Labor Commission annuls a ten-day suspension of a sheriff's employee, who at a grievance hearing, exclaimed "Oh my God, what a liar," referring to the testimony of a major. Filing a grievance is a protected activity, and impulsively calling a superior a liar during in response to a perceived inaccuracy, fell within the protection of the state's collective bargaining laws. Bristol County Sheriff's Dept. and Mass. Corr. Officers Feder. Union, Case No. MUP-03-3900 (Mass. Lab. Rel. Cmsn. 2007).
     A police sergeant's advice to her superiors that the chief's crime reduction plan will not work was not spoken as a citizen and was not protected by First Amendment. Mills v. City of Evansville, #05-3207, 452 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2006).
     Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti bars a police officer's First Amendment claim of retaliation for his speaking out about a canine training reduction. Officer was reassigned and ordered to take a fitness-for-duty psychological test. Haynes v. City of Circleville, #06-3070, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1617 (6th Cir. 2007). [N/R]
     Federal court holds that a firefighter, who was demoted after filing grievances relating to unsafe training conditions, spoke on a matter of public concern and the fire chief was not entitled to qualified immunity. Eudy v. Ridgeland, #3:06cv50, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 84958 (S.D. Miss. 2006). {N/R}
     Eleventh Circuit finds that a terminated sheriff's employee who challenged policies and internal decisions spoke in his professional capacity rather than as a concerned citizen and thus his First Amendment claim failed. Eggleston v. Bieluch, #05-16256, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 24799 (11th Cir. 2006) prior case at 107 Fed. Appx. 182. {N/R}
     Second Circuit reaffirms the rule that an "adverse" personnel action must involve the loss of a tangible or important right or benefit. A failure to grant a retiring professor "emeritus" status, which conferred no benefits, was not an adverse action. Zelnik v. Fash. Inst. of Tech., SUNY, #05-5131, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 23424 (2d Cir. 2006). [2006 FP Nov]
     Seventh Circuit rejects the First Amendment claim of a professor that had been disciplined for sexual harassment after handing out anti-homosexual literature to a gay student. The college properly believed that religious discussion could impede its educational mission. Piggee v. Carl Sandburg College, #05-3228, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 23733 (7th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Federal court overturns a $200,000 jury verdict for an officer who was transferred from his position after criticizing the police chief during a media interview. The judge acted in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (2006) which held that "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline." Moore v. City of Detroit, #04-60004, E.D. Mich. 2006). {N/R}
     In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court holds that public employees who make statements as part of their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment purposes or insulated from disciplinary action. Garcetti v. Ceballos, #04-473, 2006 U.S. Lexis 4341, 74 U.S.L.W. 4257 (2006) reversing 361 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2004). [2006 FP Aug]
     Former police chief is not entitled to dismissal of a lawsuit filed by an officer who was transferred to a less desirable position in retaliation for statements that he made against the chief. Miller v. Jones, #05-1932, 444 F.3d 929, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 9566 (7th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     A police chief was not entitled to dismissal of a suit claiming a retaliatory transfer where the officer's speech was on a matter of public concern, and where the unconstitutionality of the chief's actions was clearly established at the time they occurred. Miller v. Jones, #05-1932, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 9566 (7th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Federal court refuses to dismiss a suit filed by four current and former Michigan firefighters who claim that the township officials retaliated against them for speaking out about safety and training concerns. Habel v. Macomb Twp., #04-60160, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11249 (E.D. Mich. 2006). {N/R}
     Federal appeals panel affirms the dismissal of an employment retaliation suit, where no reasonable jury could find that the plaintiffs' speech was a substantial motivating factor in the decision to transfer them. Maestas v. Segura, #04-2028, 416 F.3d 1182, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 15228 (10th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     NLRB holds that an employer violated the federal law by having a work rule prohibiting employees from having "negative conversations" about their superiors. The Board concluded that employees could reasonably construe this rule to "bar them from discussing with their co-workers complaints about their managers that affect working conditions, thereby causing employees to refrain from engaging in protected activities." KSL Claremont Resort and Hotel Employees Union L-2850, #32-CA-20417, 2005 NLRB Lexis 272, 344 NLRB No. 105 (NLRB 2005). {N/R}
     New York City fires an officer who has a website and blog, NYPD Rant, which is critical of management. The officer likened management to the Nazi Party and posted a photo of Hitler addressing storm troopers. When you clicked on a photo of the Commissioner it changed into Popeye, the cartoon character. In re Edward Polstein. Source: N.Y. Daily News (7/12/2005). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court affirms a trial court holding that seven lieutenants were not denied a promotion because of protected speech issue. Their remarks did not touch on a matter of public concern. Alexander v. Eeds, #03-51369, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24370 (5th Cir.). {N/R}
     Fifth Circuit reinstates a wrongful termination suit, filed by a police sergeant who claimed he was fired for responding to a news reporter's questions about a possible cover-up of the use of excessive force by another officer. The fact the sergeant also may have had an interest in vindicating himself did not take away from the "public" nature of the inquiry. Markos v. City of Atlanta, Texas, #03-40140, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 5423 (5th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     Seventh Circuit finds that a former city worker was entitled to summary judgment; the record shows that he was fired in retaliation for exercising his right of free speech. Gazarkiewicz v. Town of Kingsford Heights, #03-2775, 359 F.3d 933, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 4349, 20 IER Cases (BNA) 1823 (7th Cir. 3004). {N/R}
     Arbitrator holds that a public employees' union may post "generic" employment information on workplace bulletin boards, but not "internal" membership information. Naval Inventory Control Point and AFGE L-1156, 118 LA (BNA) 695 (Pritzker, 2002; rptd. 2003). [2003 FP Oct]
     Supreme Court declines to review the termination of a NYPD officer who was fired for mailing racist literature. Pappas v. Giuliani, #00-9487, 290 F.3d 143, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 9157, 18 IER Cases (BNA) 1025 (2d Cir.); cert. den. sub nom Pappas v. Bloomberg, #02-1441, 71 U.S.L.W. 3799, 2003 U.S. Lexis 5051 (2003). [2003 FP Sep]
     Detroit police officer John Bennet was suspended for operating a website critical of the chief, FireJerryO.com Chief Jerry Oliver reportedly told the officer, "We have determined that you are the webmaster and you cannot have a web site and be a Detroit police officer. It has to be one or the other." {N/R}
     County Ethics Commission in Maryland declines a waiver for the police chief to write a book or screenplay about his role in the 2002 DC area sniper shootings. The chief has filed a suit for injunctive relief. Ethics Cmsn. Opinion No. 03-011 (Montgomery Co., MD, 2003); Moose v. Kellar, #8:03-cv-01414-RDB (D. Md. filed 5/14/2003). [2003 FP Jul]
     Fourth Circuit strikes down a police chief's order to an officer that he refrain from criticizing him and his policies. Mansoor v. Trank, #02-1277, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 1846 (4th Cir. 2003). [2003 FP Apr]
     Federal court overturns a $100,000 jury verdict for an NYPD officer who was unable to prove the Police Commissioner knew of the alleged retaliation or tolerated a custom of retaliation against officers who are critical of police brutality. Davis v. City of N.Y., #00 Civ. 4309, 228 F.Supp.2d 327, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17701 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [2003 FP Mar]
     NYC reinstates and pays $327,500 to a former police officer that was fired after criticizing the fatal shooting of Amadou Diallo. Walton v. City of N.Y., prev. rptd. at 122 F.Supp.2d 466, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17008, 17 IER (BNA) Cases 49 (S.D.N.Y); settlement rptd. by Associated Press (Nov. 11, 2002). {N/R}
     Tenth Circuit rules against a former detective in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case who, because of the chief's gag order, was unable to publicly defend herself against media allegations of incompetence. Arndt v. Koby, #01-1356, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 22701 (10th Cir. 2002). [2003 FP Jan]
     Appeals court rejects a First Amendment suit by an outspoken corrections officer who claimed that a superior was having an affair with another officer, and retaliated by denying him a promotion and imposing unfavorable assignments. The allegations did not implicate a matter of public concern. Albert v. Mitchell, #00-4271, 42 Fed. Appx. 691, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 14845 (Unpub. 6th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Appeals court rejects a First Amendment and retaliation claim of a demoted black woman commander who had publicly criticized the sheriff's dept. She had been demoted because a backlog of 6,000 warrants had not been entered into the computer and other deficiencies. Pool v. VanRheen, #00-35997, 297 F.3d 899, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 14671, 89 FEP Cases (BNA) 793 (9th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     County government was not liable for a retaliatory termination of an employee, where only one of the three commissioners who voted to eliminate her job was improperly motivated by her criticism of a potential county vendor." An unconstitutional motive on the part of one member of a three- member majority is insufficient to impute an unconstitutional motive to the Commission as a whole." Matthews v. Columbia Co., 01-10863, 294 F.3d 1294, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 12120, 18 IER Cases (BNA) 1228 (11th Cir.). {N/R}
     Sixth Circuit overturns an injunction issued to prevent a journalist from disclosing the identity of security guards assigned to the site of a labor dispute. County Security Agency v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce v. Betzold, #00-3620, 296 F.3d 477, 2002 FED App. 0224P, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 13626, 170 LRRM (BNA) 2467 (6th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rejects the lawsuit of a state police chief who was fired for opposing a subordinate from continuing to serve as the deputy chief. It was insubordination for the chief, whose position requires loyalty, to speak on job-related issues, in a manner contrary to the position of his employer. Rose v. Stephens, #00-6542, 291 F.3d 917, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 10581, 2002 FED App. 0194P, 18 IER Cases (BNA) 1147 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 FP Sep]
     Supreme Court declines to review a holding that a county did not violate a worker's Free Speech by suspending him for expressing a "negative attitude and personal antagonism" toward local and state policies. Michael v. St. Joseph Co., 259 F.3d 842, 2001 U.S.App. Lexis 17268 (7th Cir.); cert. den. #01-1441, 122 S.Ct. 2328, 2002 U.S. Lexis 4055, 70 U.S.L.W. 3741 (2002). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court affirms awards of $158,542 and $46,750 given an ex fire chief and his brother, a former firefighter; they were removed from their positions because the ex-chief's wife spoke out critically on changes in the fire dept. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, #01-1808, 01-1809, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 4990 (8th Cir. 2002). [2002 FP Jun]
     Seventh Circuit upholds right of a detective to sue for a retaliatory transfer. He pursued an investigation that revealed damaging allegations about a politician who is a close friend of the chief of police. Delgado v. Jones, #01-1460, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 3669 (7th Cir. 2002). [2002 FP May]
     Ninth Circuit upholds a whistleblower's lawsuit alleging retaliation for speaking out against prison conditions. In mixed-motive cases, the burden of justifying adverse personnel action falls on the employer. Allen v. Iranon, #99-16896, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 3892 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 FP May]
     Communications that are part of an employee's regular job duties are not matters of public concern. Police officer had claimed that he was terminated because of negative reports he had written about other officers during his prior tenure as a police civilian employee. Those reports lack First Amendment protection. Gonzalez v. Chicago, 239 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
     Eighth Circuit refuses to dismiss a wrongful termination lawsuit of an asst. fire chief who was terminated for speaking on a radio show about racism in the fire service. To warrant disciplinary action, the defendants must show the speech actually disrupted the workplace. Washington v. Normandy Fire Prot. Dist., #00-3828, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 23832 (8th Cir.). [2002 FP Jan]
     Federal appeals court upholds suit brought by corrections officers who were disciplined for “inattentiveness” during training. They engaged in Bible reading during a gay and lesbian sensitivity program. Others have not been disciplined for inattention or non-disruptive protests. Altman v. Minn. Dept. of Corrections, #00-1168 and 00-1489, 251 F.3d 1199, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 10968, 85 FEP Cases (BNA) 1300 (8th Cir.). [2001 FP 103-4]
     Appeals court holds that an officer's critical remarks about coworkers, concerning racism and police brutality, was not protected speech, and undermined police morale. McLin v. Bd. of Police Cmsnrs., #00-2799, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 11015 (Unpub. 8th Cir.). [2001 FP 104]
     Federal appeals panel upholds the firing of a city employee who insisted on adding her personal commentary in an official report, after being told not to do so. First Amendment does not protect those who advance their personal beliefs in an employer's document. Rice-Lamar v. City of Fort Lauderdale, #99-12951, 232 F.3d 836, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 27912, 84 FEP Cases (BNA) 426, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 1638 (11th Cir. 2000), affirming 54 F.Supp.2d 1137, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21025. [2001 FP 38-9]
     Federal court finds that the firing of a police officer for minor infractions was actually retaliation for public criticism of the Street Crimes Unit. Walton v. City of N.Y., 122 F.Supp.2d 466, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17008, 17 IER (BNA) Cases 49 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). [2001 FP 23-4]
     Federal court upholds a 60-day suspension of a minority police officer who, in a published letter, called the chief a “liar.” He was unable to prove discriminatory bias and the accusation was not protected by the First Amendment. Moorer v. Copley Twp., 98 F.Supp.2d 838, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3227 (N.D. Ohio). [2001 FP 8]
     Volunteer fire company had police powers and sovereign immunity, was substantially funded and regulated by the stat; the termination of a firefighter for exercising his right of free speech was “under color” of law for purpose of 42 U.S. Code 1983. Chestnut Ridge Vol. Fire Co. v. Goldstein, 218 F.3d 337, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 843 (4th Cir. 2000); cert. den. #00-818, 69 L.W. 3495 (2001). {N/R}
     Mass. Supreme Court upholds the termination of a public employee for telling a racist joke at a political event. Pereira v. Cmsnr. of Soc. Serv., #08218, 432 Mass. 251, 733 N.E.2d 112, 2000 Mass. Lexis 406. [2000 FP 153]
     Federal appeals court affirms termination of a firefighter who accused the chief of favoritism to homosexuals and promoting a radical lesbian agenda. Greer v. Amesqua, #99-2767, 212 F.3d 358, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 452, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 9155 (7th Cir.); cert. denied #00-461 (11/27/00). [2000 FP 103-4]
     Arbitrator upholds disciplinary action against a police officer for speaking obscenities to a superior, even though the agency tolerated obscene and vulgar comments in general. Metrop. Wash. Airports Auth. and IUPA L-5004, FMCS #300/01801-8, 114 LA (BNA) 589 (Moore, 2000). [2000 FP 170-1]
     Firefighter's speech concerning safety violations -- including inadequate training and safety regulations violations were entitled to First Amendment protection. Goldstein v. Chestnut Ridge Vol. Fire Co., 218 F.3d 337, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 15996, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 843 (4th Cir. 2000). {N/R}
     Corrections employee's interest in speaking to reporter about racial problems outweighed his employer interest in efficiency. Cox v. Douglas Co. Civil Serv. Cmsn., 259 Neb. 1013, 614 N.W.2d 273, 2000 Neb. Lexis 167, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 860 (Neb 2000). {N/R}
     Police sergeants' complaints about racial and gender equality issues were not protected speech. Cochran v. City of Los Angeles, 222 F.3d 1195, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 20688, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 1230 (9th Cir. 2000). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court strikes down a prohibition against public employees serving as expert witnesses in litigation against their employing entities. Hoover v. Morales, 164 F.3d 221, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 32611, 14 IER Cases (BNA) 1867. [1999 FP 122]
     Federal court rejects a speech-retaliation Sec. 1983 claim because the plaintiff did not admit or deny writing an anonymous letter, which purportedly was the reason for the disciplinary action brought against him. Hahn v. Vil. of Downer's Grove, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3590 (N.D. Ill), relying on Barkoo v. Melby, 901 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1990). [1999 FP 102-3]
     Federal appeals court affirms the right fire a training academy official who, without a subpoena, testified in a civil suit, as an expert witness, that an officer had used excessive force. The testimony alienated the law enforcement community the academy provides training to. Tedder v. Norman, 167 F.3d 1213, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 2251, 14 IER Cases (BNA) 1500 (8th Cir.). [1999 FP 86-7]
     Federal appeals court upholds a NYPD requirement that officers notify management of any speech they will make, and give their superiors a copy, after the fact. Latino Officers Assn. v. Safir, #97-7957, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 3450, 170 F.2d 167 (2d Cir.). [1999 FP 73]
     Policymaking official could be fired for refusing to support his boss at a public board hearing. Lewis v. Cowen, #97-7895, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 585, 165 F.3d 154 (2nd Cir.). [1999 FP 56-7]
     A police officer who appeared in disguise on a TV news program, in support of woman officer's discrimination claim and spoke of the chief's "vindictiveness" against anyone who questioned his decisions, lacked a valid free-speech claim, based on alleged retaliation. Kokkinis v. Ivkovich, 15 IER Cases (BNA) 577, 185 F.3d 840, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 17678 (7th Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     Nebraska Supreme Court overturns ruling by lower court that found that use of the "N" word was protected speech. Discipline of a corrections lieutenant is appropriate, for making off-duty racial and gender-biased remarks. Vinci v. Neb. Dept. Corr. Serv., 253 Neb. 423, 571 N.W.2d 53, 1997 Neb. Lexis 232, 13 IER Cases (BNA) 869. [1998 FP 88]
     New Jersey Supreme Court upholds a 48-day suspension imposed on an off-duty firefighter that used the "N" word in the presence of a minority police officer. Karins v. Atlantic City, 1998 N.J. Lexis 91, 76 FEP Cases (BNA) 97. [1998 FP 70-1]
     Ex-firefighter who was denied reinstatement after writing a critical news article accepts a $85,000 settlement. [1998 FP ID Confidential] v. City of Oceanside, Super.Ct. San Diego Co., 110 (227) L.A.D.J. {V&S} 3 (10/3/1997). [1998 FP 9]
     Police officer's comments on issues of fairness were mattes of public concern, implicating the 1st Amendment. Olive v. Scottsdale, 969 F.Supp. 564 (D.Ariz. 1996). {N/R)
     Corrections officer's statements concern lax prison security rose to the level of public concern, and outweighed the agency's interest in maintaining discipline. Mascetta v. Miranda, 957 F.Supp. 1346 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). {N/R}
     California appeals panel rejects suit of a public official who was discharged for expressing opposition to homosexuals; First Amendment does not protect public officials who hold sensitive positions. Lumpkin v. Jordan, 1996 Cal.App. Lexis 948, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 303, 71 FEP Cases (BNA) 1786. [1997 FP 70]
     Police officer's voluntary appearance to testify on defendant's behalf at bail hearing was a protected activity. Green v. Phila. Hsg. Auth., 105 F.3d 882 (3d Cir. 1997). {N/R}
     Police officer's internal investigation and report of misconduct by other officers was protected speech. Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 1996). {N/R}
     Police officers' reports to media concerning illegal wiretaps conducted by others in dept. was protected speech Forsyth v. City of Dallas, 91 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 1996). {N/R}
     Police officer's letter to police chief criticizing community-oriented policing program was protected speech. Campbell v. Towse, 99 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 1996); cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1254 (1997). {N/R}
     The D.C. Circuit has held that a police report, made by the director of security for the D.C. Lottery, concerning $500 that was missing from an office safe, constituted a matter of public concern, even though (a) the public never became aware of the missing cash, (b) the report was made in the routine course of the security director's job, and (c) the news item itself was not overly significant. Fox v. Dist. of Columbia, 83 F.3d 1491 (D.C. Cir. 1996). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court sustains termination of officer who criticized the criminal justice system on two radio broadcasts. His remarks undermined interagency relationships and impaired public confidence. Jefferson v. Ambroz, 90 F.3d 1291 (7th Cir. 1996). [1996 FP 167-8]
     City did not violate the 1st Am. rights of a probation officer who criticized the courts system and a local police dept. while on a radio call- in show, where the city's interest in promoting efficient operation of its probation dept. outweighed the officer's interest in the statements made. Jefferson v. Ambroz, 90 F.3d 1291, 11 IER Cases (BNA) 1675 (7th Cir. 1996). {N/R}
     A mathematician's cryptographic computer source code is "speech" protected by the First Amendment. An encryption program is no less entitled to constitutional protection than technical bomb-making information and there is no meaningful difference between computer language and German or French. Bernstein v. U.S. 922 F.Supp. 1426 (N.D.Cal. 1996). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court upholds demotion of sergeant for disobeying a policy forbidding the use of city letterhead without the chief's approval. Tyler v. City of Mountain Home, 72 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 1996). [1996 FP 102]
     Federal court enters judgment of $76,889 for back pay of corrections officer who was terminated for exercising her right of free speech. Sagendorf-Teal v. Co. of Rensselaer, 904 F.Supp. 95 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court affirms termination of sheriff's officers that gave Nazi salutes and shouted German expressions. Termination was appropriate because the appellants held leadership positions. Pruitt v. Howard Co. Sheriff's Dept., 1996 U.S.App. Lexis 1266 (Unrptd., 4th Cir.). [1996 FP 86-7]
     First amendment did not protect gender-biased insults about women legislators; disciplinary action upheld. Lockhart v. Dept. Fish and Game, 903 P.2d 135 (Idaho App. 1995). [1996 FP 57]
     Suit by former deputy chief of police for retaliatory demotion following his critical remarks. Statements not entitled to 1st Am. protection. Moore v. Wynnewood, 57 F.3d 924 (10th Cir. 1995). {N/R}
     Federal appellate court sustains a military base commander's right to ban vehicle stickers that disparage the President. Panel distinguishes military life from civilian employment. Ethredge v. Hail, 56 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 1995). {N/R}
     Officer's criticisms of the president of the police union and the chief who negotiated a CBA, did not involve matters of public concern. Accusations of official impropriety did, precluding summary judgment of his civil rights suit alleging a wrongful termination for exercising his First Amendment rights. Edmundson v. Bor. of Kennett Sq., 881 F.Supp. 188 (E.D.Pa. 1995). {N/R}
     Police Employee Assistance Program manager's critical statements to a newspaper are protected under the First Amendment, where management's interest in avoiding disruption does not outweigh the manager's interest in speaking on issue of public importance; there was no showing that the interview was likely to interfere with police morale or public confidence. Watters v. City of Philadelphia, 55 F.3d 886, 10 IER Cases (BNA) 1121 (3rd Cir. 1995). {N/R}
     Federal appeals ct. hold that sergeant was not terminated for expressing concern about understaffing and improper training. Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376 (4th Cir. 1995). {N/R}
     Federal court upholds a 30 day suspension of police officer for conduct unbecoming. Off-duty officer made rude remarks to bank employees. Harper v. Crockett, 868 F.Supp. 1557 (E.D.Ark. 1994). {N/R}
     City violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights when he was demoted for participating in a petition drive to recall a police commissioner. Spiering v. City of Madison, 863 F.Supp. 1065 (D.S.D. 1994). {N/R}
     First Amendment did not protect a coach who told a basketball team to “play like niggers on the court.” Although he did not intend to insult anyone and used the N-word to signify aggressive and tough behavior, it did not touch a matter of public concern. His termination by a state school did not violate the Constitution. Dambrot v. Central Mich. Univ., 55 F.3d 1177 (6th Cir. 1995). {N/R}
     Public use of words such as bitch and whore by a police officer cannot be justified as “rough” language protected by the First Amendment. Rather, words that are derogatory of or offensive to women create a hostile work environment. Black v. City of Auburn, 857 F.Supp. 1540 (M.D.Ala. 1994). {N/R}
     Federal court sustains termination of corrections officer who, while off-duty at a private residence, wore a “White Power” T shirt marked with a swastika. Lawrenz v. James, 852 F.Supp. 986, 1994 U.S.Dist. Lexis 6700 (M.D. Fla.). [1995 FP 103]
     Federal appeals court upholds chief's order forbidding a lieutenant from giving anti gun control speeches in uniform. Thomas v. Whalen, 10 IER Cases (BNA) 868, 51 F.3d 1285 (6th Cir. 1995); cert. den. 116 S.Ct. [1995 FP 103-4]
     Appeals court upholds disciplinary action against a male employee who called a female employee a “slut bitch.” U.S. v. Caver, 41 M.J. 556 (N.M.C.Ct.Crim.App. 1994). [1995 FP 87]
     Federal appeals court dismisses a suit by an officer who was suspended five days for using the word “shit” several times while giving testimony. First Amendment does not protect vulgar speech. Hansen v. Soldenwagner, 19 F.3d 573 (11th Cir. 1994). [1995 FP 38]
     Federal appeals court rejects a suit challenging an alleged retaliatory assignment given a police detective who voiced concerns about workplace smoking. Smith v. Fruin, 28 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 1994); cert.den. 115 S.Ct. 735. [1995 FP 6]
     Supreme Court adds to “Connick” test concerning disruptive speech by a public employee. Employer may act in a good faith interpretation of what management thought was said. Waters v. Churchill, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 9 IER Cases 801 (1994). {N/R}
     County could not dismiss an asst. prosecutor for writing a novel about fictitious persons. Eberhardt v. O'Malley, 17 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1994). {N/R}
     Federal court allows a civilian employee to wear an anti-abortion button at work, but affirms the employer's right to require her to conceal the fetus on the button. Wilson v. U.S. West Comm., 65 FEP Cases (BNA) 200 (D.Neb. 1994); affirmed, #94-2752, 58 F.3d 1337, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 16605, 68 FEP Cases (BNA) 341 (8th Cir.). [1994 FP 168-9]
     Arbitrator annuals punishment of 911 operator who used profanity in the workplace. Remarks were not directed to a coworker, were used to relieve stress, and agency's standards of speech were vague. Minneapolis, City of and Minn. AFSCME Council 14, 101 LA (BNA) 1006 (Daly, 1993). [1994 FP 134]
     Former city employee, who was fired after he wrote a letter to the newspaper, criticizing a city residency ordinance, stated a claim for retaliation against his exercise of First Amendment rights. Holder v. City of Allentown, 9 IER Cases (BNA) 1171 (E.D.Pa. 1994). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court reverses trial court that dismissed a suit filed by a state trooper against the commissioner, challenging a transfer imposed after he expressed opinions on the operation of a town. U.S. Supreme Court declines review. Bieluch v. Sullivan, 999 F.2d 666 (2d Cir. 1993); cert. den. sub nom Sullivan v. Bieluch 114 S.Ct. 926 (1994). {N/R}
     Arbitrator upholds a disciplinary suspension of a union representative for directing profane language at a management negotiator after leaving the bargaining session. However, blue language uttered during the bargaining process was protected speech. AFGE L. 3254 and Grissom A.F.B., FMCS #93-19558, 32 (1556) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 355 (Speroff, 1994). [1994 FP 91]
     Former corrections employee's claim that her supervisor sexually harassed her did not constitute protected speech, as it was not a “public concern.” Morgan v. Ford, 6 F.3d 750 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 114 S.Ct. 2708 (1994). {N/R}
     Officer's satirical memo criticizing a special squad did not relate to matter of public concern. Angle v. Dow, 822 F.Supp. 1530 (S.D. Ala. 1993). {N/R}
     Maryland Supreme Court upholds disciplinary action against a police sergeant who criticized his superiors in the presence of other officers. It was not a punishable offense, however, to advise a subordinate to keep silent after she shot a suspect. Younkers v. Prince Georges Co., 333 Md. 14, 633 A.2d 861 (1993). [1994 FP 91-2]
     Federal appeals panel rejects officer's suit which alleged a coverup of misbehavior by the chief. Officer had refused to return to work and therefore lacked a cause of action for wrongful separation. Gillum v. City of Kerrville, 3 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 1993); cert. den. 114 S.Ct. 881 (1994). [1994 FP 54]
     Supreme court declines review of appellate decision which found a firefighter's suspension was not imposed pursuant to a municipal "custom or policy." Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. den. 114 S.Ct. 345. [1994 FP 23-4]
     Police officer did not engage in “speech,” much less “protected speech” when he allowed TV crew to tape his drug-sniffing dog. His suit for first amendment violations fails. Mylett v. Mullican, 992 F.2d 1347 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 114 S.Ct. 345 (1993). [1994 FP 24]
     Federal court enjoins the disciplinary transfer of a fire captain, and an order to submit to psychiatric evaluation. Captain had filed a grievance protesting chief's order banning a cartoon in the fire station. Watts v. Alfred, 794 F.Supp. 431 (D.D.C. 1992). [1993 FP 23]
     Federal court holds a city council could not forbid firefighters from speaking during its public meetings on fire service issues; law requiring employees to use chain-of-command method of expressing their views violated the First Amendment. Pesek v. City of Brunswick, 794 F.Supp. 768 (N.D. Ohio 1992). [1993 FP 23-4]
     Federal appeals court affirms $127,000 award to terminated deputy who was fired by the sheriff for writing a presentence letter to a judge in behalf of a criminal defendant. Buzek v. Co. of Saunders, 972 F.2d 992 (8th Cir. 1992). [1993 FP 42]
     Federal court upholds order banning bumper stickers on military employees’ cars that “disparage” the Commander in Chief. Etheridge v. Hail, 795 F.Supp. 1152 (M.D.Ga. 1992). [1993 FP 42-3]
     Town council's resolution, abolishing a parttime officer's position after he voiced support of the chief on a controversial incident, was not an action entitled to “legislative immunity.” Goldberg v. Town of Rocky Hill, 973 F.2d 70 (2nd Cir. 1992) [1993 FP 54]
     Appellate court sustains termination of sheriff's officers for on-duty Nazi mannerisms; First Amendment did not protect their behavior. Pruitt v. Howard Co. Sheriff's Dept., 96 Md.App. 60, 623 A.2d 696 (1993). [1993 FP 105]
     Federal court strikes down a city ordinance prohibiting city employees from making speeches or granting interviews to the media. Wolf v. City of Aberdeen, 758 F.Supp. 551 (D.S.D. 1991). [1992 FP 72]
     Appellate court affirms termination of lieutenant who referred to his captain as an "asshole" and to another lieutenant as a “Jew cocksucker.” Griggs v. No. Maine Fire Dist., 576 N.E.2d 1082 (Ill.App. 1992). [1992 FP 137]
     Federal court strikes down DCFD rule that requires approval before giving statements to media and forbids embarrassing bumper stickers. Fire Fighters Ass'n of D.C. v. Barry, 742 F.Supp. 1182 (D.D.C. 1990).
     U.S. Court of Appeals recognizes a "small office exception" and limits right of employee dissent. Beuer v. Hart, 909 F.2d 1035 (7th Cir. 1990).
     Louisiana appellate court upholds 90-day disciplinary suspension of officer who circulated obnoxious cartoons he drew. They depicted “rats,” identified as other officers, engaging in sex. Normand v. City of Baton Rouge, 572 So.2d 1123 (La. App. 1990).
     Firefighters were lawfully fined by their city for disruptive behavior in paramedic class, including one who wore a Tee shirt reading "Compassion Sucks." Kadzielawski v. Fire & Police Cmsn. of Skokie, 551 N.E.2d 331 (Ill.App. 1990).
     Sending an unsigned letter to the mayor and council alleging that a person promoted to major was involved in "unethical and illegal activities" was not protected speech. Demotion upheld. Warner v. Town of Ocean City, 567 A.2d 160 (Md. App. 1989).
     Councilman who publicly called chief a “dumb son-of-a-bitch” and "incompetent" did not commit a slander. Finck v. City of Tea, 443 N.W.2d 632, 1989 S.D. Lexis 112 (S.D. 1989).
     Captain's accusations against the chief were so disruptive they impaired efficiency, and outweighed any free speech considerations; circumstances were determinative. Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1989).
     Federal appeals court reverses and remands firefighter's wrongful termination suit. He criticized the way a citizen was forcibly taken to the hospital and offered to testify in his behalf. Gillette v. Delmore, 886 F.2d 1194 (9th Cir. 1989).
     Federal appeals court overturns discipline of a union president, who publicly criticized fire dept. staffing levels, following the death of one and injury of another firefighter; his insubordinate statement did not diminish department's ability to fight fires and city's interest in controlling flow of "accurate" information carried no weight. Moore v. City of Kilgore, 877 F.2d 364, 4 IER Cases (BNA) 1174 (5th Cir. 1989).
     Missouri appellate court sustains termination of city employee for calling a fellow employee a “Nigger.” City not required to show the word impaired workplace efficiency. Medvik v. Ollendorff, 772 S.W.2d 696 (Mo.App. 1989).
     Lieutenant's letter to city council complaining of "mismanagement" was not protected by the First Amendment. McEvoy v. Shoemaker, 882 F.2d 463 (10th Cir. 1989).
     Lieutenant's letter which alleged serious misconduct was privileged. Jury award of $752,643 reduced. Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842 (10th Cir. 1989).
     Federal appeals court upholds right of police academy secretary to sue for loss of her job for public criticism of the Governor. Damages could not be awarded, because her lawyer failed to sue the academy director in his individual capacity. Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429 (8th Cir. 1989).
     Federal appeals court upholds $75,000 damage award for emotional distress; female officer was terminated for giving an interview concerning department's bias against women. Matulin v. Village of Lodi, 862 F.2d 609 (6th Cir. 1989).
     Sergeant's report of bottle-throwing incident, which accused residents of a black neighborhood of being of “limited intelligence” and “animalistic” behavior warranted disciplinary action, and was not protected by the first amendment. Boone v. Mingus, 697 F.Supp. 1577 (S.D. Ala. 1988).
     N.Y. court strikes down sheriff's dept. rule that prohibits deputies from giving interviews with the press. Holland v. Dillon, 531 N.Y.S.2d 467 (Misc. 1988).
     Federal appeals court reinstates employee's claim against state police agency that suspended her for giving an interview. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3rd Cir. 1988); final judgment entered in U. S. Dist. Ct., Civ. #85-0791 (M.D. Pa. 8/2/88).
     City PD sergeant who called county PD officer a “fag,” “piss-assed lieutenant” and “mother-fucker” could be disciplined. Sims v. Baer, 732 S.W.2d 916 (Mo.App. 1987).
     Patrolman's spiteful remarks to superiors were not protected by First Amendment; discipline proper. McMurphy v. City of Flushing, 802 F.2d 191 (6th Cir. 1986).
     Supreme Court reinstates deputy who expressed desire to see the President assassinated. Rankin v. McPherson, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 55 L.W. 5019 (6/24/87).
     Chief loses his suit against city employee who called him a "fat ass;" merely an opinion, not defamation. Kirkland v. City of Peekskill, 634 F.Supp. 950 (A.D.N.Y. 1986).
     City erred in dismissing fire chief who expressed concern over inadequate equipment during TV interview. Brasslett v. Cota, 761 F.2d 827 (1st Cir. 1985).
     Appeals court affirms termination of officer who publicized a private grievance with chief; no first amendment protection. Thomas v. City of Grover City, Cal.App., 2d Dist., #B015895, unpub. (7/4/86). [1986 (141) FP 3]
     Firefighter entitled to award of general damages without establishing economic loss, following an improper suspension for publicly airing his grievances. Walje v. City of Winchester, Ky., 773 F.2d 729 (6th Cir. 1985).
     Firefighter who called superiors goddam mother-fuckers and S.O.B.s was lawfully terminated; not a free speech issue. Marshall v. City of Atlanta, 614 F.Supp. 581 (N.D. Ga. 1984).
     Discipline appropriate for derogatory language directed to police and fire commissioner. Pollett v. McGourty, 490 N.Y.S.2d 337 (A.D. 1985).
     Officer's letter-writing campaign no protection against termination, absent proof of causal connection. Cranford v. Moore, 587 F.Supp. 712 (M.D. N.C. 1984).
     Missouri appellate court upholds disciplinary action for calling his superior a “jack off.” Ware v. Sayad, 676 S.W.2d 258 (Mo.App. 1984).
     Federal appeals court modifies lower court order in case where sheriff's deputy endorsed an ambulance service. Zook v. Brown, 748 F.2d 1161 (7th Cir. 1984).
     Department gag rule invalid; reinstatement ordered. Oliver v. Dept. of State Police, 349 N.W.2d 211 (Mich. App. 1984).
     “Chain of command” rule could not be used to terminate employee who reported what he believed was misconduct. Brockell v. Norton, 732 F.2d 664 (8th Cir. 1984).
     Officer properly terminated for his refusal to remove black shroud from his badge. Wilson v. City of Littleton, 732 F.2d 765 (10th Cir. 1984).
     Intimidating, rude and profane remarks to sergeant warranted police officer's termination. Sieg v. Civil Service Cmsn. of West Des Moines (Iowa 1983); Jacocks v. Montgomery County, 472 A.2d 485 (Md. Sp.App. 1984).
     Federal appeals court affirms damages and reinstatement of union member who criticized city on TV show. McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir. 1984).
     Court upholds discipline against off-duty officer who intervened in police action and criticized superior. Beeler v. Behan, 464 A.2d 1091 (Md. Sp. App. 1983).
     Sheriff could not terminate sergeant who signed complaint against major for circulating copies of the complaint outside the “chain of command.” Back pay not subject to set-off for outside earnings. Collins v. Robinson, 568 F.Supp. 1464 (E.D. Ark. 1983).
     State police could punish trooper for off-duty speech to PTA, but applicable regulation was vague and overbroad. Micilcavage v. Connelie, 570 F.Supp. 975 (N.D. N.Y. 1983).
     Federal appeals court orders back pay for suspended employee who made speech to board instead of following the chain-of-command. Czurlanis v. Albanese, 721 F.2d 98 (3rd Cir. 1983).
     Officer could not be suspended for rude remarks to and about his future father-in-law, made in private. Tomkiel v. Tredyffrin Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 440 A 2d 690 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
     Alaska supreme court upholds $88,424 damages award and $16,297 in legal fees for reinstatement action; letter to council others, protected speech. Policymaking-rank officers not distinguished. City and Bor. of Sitka v. Swanner, 649 P.2d 940 (Alaska 1982).
     Supreme court rejects defamation and first amendment suit for damages of reinstated federal employee; other remedies cited. Bush v. Lucas, 103 S.Ct. 2404, affirming 647 F.2d 573 (1983).
     Federal appeals court upholds right of captain to call his chief a bastard and son-of-a-bitch. Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833 (11th Cir. 1983). [83 (103) FP 8-9]
     Captain's statements to a public safety committee which were highly critical of the chief were protected speech. Clemons v. Dougherty, 684 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir. 1982). [83 (103) FP 8-9]
     First Amendment no protection for circulation of offensive "questionnaire;" termination upheld by supreme court. Award of damages and attorney's fees reversed. Connick v. Myers, 103 S.Ct. 1684 (1983).
     Federal appeals court clears way for officers to sue for promotion; complaint alleged position was abolished in retaliation against their request for city council hearing. Bowen v. Watkins, 669 F.2d 980 (5th Cir. 1982).
     Undersheriff could not be terminated for testifying for defendant in criminal case under subpoena. Tate v. Yenoir, 537 F.Supp. 306 (N.D. Mich. 1982).
     Off-duty remarks made at city council meeting did not justify termination "for cause" -- $64,000 awarded. Hutchison v. Hugart, 285 S. E. 2d 897 (W. Va. 1982).
     Louisiana appellate court affirms termination for giving newspapers an interview regarding employee thefts. Trahan v. City of Jennings Fire and Police Bd., 411 So.2d 1242 (La. App. 1982).
     Four letter folly; single utterance of profanity does not warrant termination of officer. Batley v. Kendall Co. Sheriff's Merit Cmsn., 425 N.E.2d 1201 (Ill.App. 1981).
     Federal courts overturn “gag orders” in police and fire departments. Grady v. Blair, 529 F.Supp. 370 (N.D. Ill. 1981); Caithamer v. Lanzillotti, G.E.R.R. (BNA) 947:28; 88 Fire & Police Persnl. Rptr. p. 8. (N.D. Ill. 1982).
     Appellate court upholds right of employee to sue union for libelous remarks in magazine. Corcoran v. New Orleans Fire Fighters Assn. Local 632, 379 So.2d 829 (La. App. 1980).
     Federal court rules that officer's disclosures about police corruption to FBI was protected by First Amendment; union could be sued on conspiracy theory for declining him representation on suspension matter. Shoemaker v. Allender, 520 F.Supp. 266 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
     City council may not forbid representatives of an unrecognized union to address it; picketing ordinance must be narrowly drawn. Hickory Fire Fighters Assn. Local 2553 IAFF v. City of Hickory, North Carolina, 656 F.2d 917 (4th Cir. 1981).
     Discipline of employee for giving news interview reversed; no evidence of malice or disregard for falsity of information. Griggs v. Board of Fire Cmsnrs. of North Maine FPD, 430 N.E.2d 188 (Ill.App. 1981).
     Threats of a fight are not protected by the First Amendment; suspension affirmed. Dumez v. Houma Fire and Police Civil Service Board, 408 So.2d 403 (La. App. 1981).
     Private criticism of superiors could not be punished; employee had no duty to apologize; could not be assessed extra duty. Callaghan v. Department of Fire, 385 So.2d 25 (La. App. 1980).
     Probationary officer could not be fired for advocating an illegal strike. Tygrett v. Barry, 627 F.2d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
     First Amendment no protection for insolence and loud threats; suspension proper. Watts v. Civil Service Bd. for Columbia, 606 S.W.2d 274 (Tenn. 1980).
     Fifth Circuit, on en banc rehearing, sets aside earlier opinion. Conduct unbecoming rule upheld as facially constitutional. Davis v. Williams, 617 F.2d 1100 (5th Cir. en banc, 1980).
     Officer could be disciplined for writing letter to editor which commended a particular ambulance service. Zook v. Brown, 575 F.Supp. 72 (C.D. Ill. 1983); Weisenritter v. Board of Fire and Police Cmsnrs. of Burbank, 385 N.E.2d 336 (Ill. 1979).
     Three officers get reinstatement, expungement and $110,000 damages for retaliatory dismissal for disclosing departmental misconduct. Donofry v. Township of Upper Moreland, U.S. Dist. Ct. for E.D. of Pa., #77-2301.
     Employee's suspension overturned; accused mayor of stealing an election in presence of hundreds of citizens. Shewmake v. Board of Fire & Police Cmsnrs. of East Alton, 390 N.E.2d 536 (Ill.App. 1979).
     Off-duty employee could call alderman a "dummy" in city council chambers; police had no right to order him to leave; punishment annulled. Hasenstab v. Board of Fire & Police Cmsnrs. of Belleville, 389 N.E.2d 588 (Ill.App. 1979).
     First Amendment protects employees from demotion from untenured positions. Morris v. City of Kokomo, 381 N.E.2d 510 (Ind.App. 1978).
     First Amendment also protects employees who are "passed over" for promotion. Bickel v. Burkhart, 462 F.Supp. 682 (N.D. Tex. 1978).
     New Jersey court upholds minor punishment of officer who criticized police chief; subject matter not a matter of public interest for First Amendment exception. Hall v. Mayor of Pennsauken, 406 A.2d 317, 170 N.J. Super. 307 (1979).
     Use of vulgar language to superior punishable as "conduct unbecoming" a firefighter; first and fifth amendment inapplicable. City of Wichita Falls v. Fowler, 555 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977).
     Transfer of public employee who criticized department was wrongful; reasonable damages should be awarded. Rosado v. Santiago, 562 F.2d 114 (1st Cir. 1977).
     Federal appeals court invalidates Newark's rule against unfavorable or disrespectful speech. Gasparinetti v. Kerr, 46 U.S. Law Week 2252 (3rd Cir. 1977).
     U.S. Court of Appeals disallows expungement of reprimands from files of officers who publicly discredited police department. Byrd v. Gain, 558 F.2d 553 (9th Cir. 1977).
     Transfer to punish employee for publicly revealing departmental information held unconstitutional by federal court. Ruhlman v. Barger, 435 F Supp. 447 (W.D. Pa. 1976).
     Georgia appellate court upholds “gag rule”; banning communication outside department. Hodnett v. City of Atlanta, 243 S.E.2d 605 (Ga. App. 1978).
     Federal court upholds “gag rule”; there is no First Amendment right to discuss an ongoing investigation with the media. Ely v. Honaker, 451 F.Supp. 16 (W.D. Va. 1977).
     First Amendment does not permit employees to publicly express view that superior is guilty of a crime. Hopkins v. Dolinger, 453 F.Supp. 59 (W.D. Va. 1978).
     Letter, made public, criticizing and accusing chief, may furnish grounds for termination; good faith exceptions noted. Unruh v. City Council, 78 Cal.App.3rd 18; 143 Cal.Rptr. 870 (1978).
     Supreme court finds that private conversation between public employer and employee is protected by First Amendment. Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U.S. 693, 99 S.Ct. 693 (1979).
     Federal court reinstates union president suspended for his remarks; back pay awarded. Punitive damages and attorney fees denied. Castleberry v. Langford, 428 F.Supp. 676 (N.D. Tex. 1977).
     Union official suspended for critical remarks; appellate court upholds punishment. Statements exceeded scope of first amendment protection. Shipp v. Davis, 362 N.E.2d 822, 48 Ill.App.3rd 463 (1977), leave to appeal denied.
     Slowdown letter not protected. Broyles v. Baton Rouge Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board, 340 So.2d 349 (La. App. 1976).
     First Amendment protected a police officer who, as president of the union and was suspended for making televised statements criticizing the current police administration and stating that morale was low. Their was no actual showing that the working harmony or efficiency of the department had been disrupted or that public confidence was undermined. Brukiewa v. Police Comm'r of Baltimore City, 257 Md. 36, 263 A.2d 210 (D. Md. 1970). {N/R}
     A police force is peculiar, sui generis, and resembles a military force. It "requires that the members of it shall surrender their individual opinion and power to act, and submit to that of the controlling head just as much as the common soldier must surrender his own opinion and power of action to that of his commanding officer." There is “the same necessity of discipline, of regulation existing in the police department that exists in regard to the military department.” Frat. Order of Police v. Harris, 10 N.W.2d 310 (Mich. 1943).
     Police officers may elect membership in the organizations of their choice with near complete assurance that their decisions will receive protection under the Constitution. "A policeman may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman." McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 220 (1892).
     Note: A comprehensive discussion of the law involving the First Amendment rights of police officers to participate in activities of hate groups is found at 81 Iowa L. Rev. 1079 (1996). “Blue by Day and White by Knight: Regulating the Political Affiliations of Law Enforcement and Military Personnel.”
     See also: Defamation; Disciplinary Punishment; First Amendment Related; Patronage Employment; Picketing; Transfers; Wrongful Discharge.