A police lieutenant was commander of a Violent Offenders Task Force involving the FBI, ATF, and U.S. Attorney's Office. During a task force investigation of a gang, he learned that gang members had plans to kill police officers. He told a local police chief that the U.S. Attorney's Office would brief him about the investigation. ATF officials believed that this disclosure was improper because of the existing wiretap and prohibited the lieutenant from entering ATF office space. Subsequently, in an unrelated investigation, a suspected gang leader identified six city police officers as corrupt. Because he doubted the veracity of these accusations, the lieutenant confronted the informant. The FBI told the police chief that the lieutenant was damaging the investigation, and he was first removed from that investigation and later from the task force. The lieutenant then filed a misconduct complaint, which was later determined to be unfounded, against a sergeant involved in his reassignment, and then allegedly made an anonymous phone call to the police chief's wife telling her that the FBI was "corrupt." He was disciplined for false allegations, placed on administrative leave, and then demoted. The plaintiff failed to show that his demotion or any of the steps that led to it were motivated by racial animus and a substantive due process claim was rejected as none of what he experienced was severe enough to "shock the conscience." Keefe v. City of Minneapolis, #13-3069, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7714, 127 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 16 (8th Cir.).
     The plaintiffs claimed that they were improperly terminated or demoted because the county's board voted to dissolve the Office of Public Safety, where they were employed, and merge its functions with the county sheriff's department. The plaintiffs failed to qualify for deputy jobs, but were instead offered lower paying jobs. An intermediate California appeals court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the decision was immune from liability under a state statute as a legislative enactment, and the lawsuit was primarily for money damages not injunctive relief. A federal court had already previously decided that the plaintiffs were not entitled under state law to be offered comparable jobs or administrative hearings or appeals to challenge the county's actions, so they were barred from relitigating the issue. Esparza v. County of Los Angeles, #B243496, 2014 Cal. App. Lexis 209.
     After a correctional employee was demoted for violating a state travel billing policy, the department's Commissioner responded to media questions about the demotion. The employee sued for defamation. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the state and cabinet level executive officials were absolutely immune from a defamation claim arising in this manner--for statements made while performing official duties. Jones v. State, #M2012-02546-SC-S09-CV, 2013 Tenn. Lexis 1013.
     A group of firefighters claimed that a city failed to provide a fair and impartial promotional process by failing to prevent cheating on a promotional exam for jobs as fire lieutenant. The trial court enjoined the city from making permanent promotions based on the challenged test results. As part of its order, firefighters who underwent a retest, who had scored at certain levels the first time around, were to lose their provisional promotion if their second score deviated more than a specified number of points from their first test score. Firefighters who had not previously been parties to the case claimed that the injunctive order improperly identified them as probable cheaters on the first test and that they were singled out for demotions, as well as having special requirements imposed on them after the second test that did not apply equally to others. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that these firefighters had a right to intervene in the case because its results had an impact on them. The court also found that the trial court engaged in an abuse of its discretion by creating an injunctive order that singled out these firefighters for specific relief without them being joined as parties to the lawsuit. Barham v. City of Atlanta, #S12A1720, 2013 Ga. Lexis 106.
     The U.S. Department of Justice has entered into a settlement with the city of Selma, Texas on a claim that the city unlawfully retaliated against a firefighter who filed a complaint against a fire chief for his use of ethnic slurs in the workplace by demoting him from lieutenant to firefighter. The city agreed to pay the employee $28,500 in back pay. Reversal of the demotion was not a remedy, because the employee had subsequently become employed by another fire department. The city also agreed to provide training to all city fire department employees and all city supervisory employees on the legal prohibitions on discrimination and retaliation. U.S. v. City of Selma, #5:12-cv-00287, U.S. Dist. Ct. (W.D. Tex. 2012).
     Demotion of 25 Memphis police captains for economic reasons did not violate the Due Process Clause because they lacked a protected property interest. Aldridge v. City of Memphis, #08-6046, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 25642, 2010 FED App. 0756N (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     Sergeants, who were temporarily demoted because of budgetary restraints, were not automatically reinstated as sergeants when positions opened. "Under federal law, the limitations clock begins to run when the claimants know or should have known that the defendant violated their rights, ... which occurs when the claimants learn of an illegal action, not when the claimants feel the effects of the action." Hebron v. Shelby Co. Govt., #09-6241, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 26028, 2010 FED App. 0782N (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     A sworn California peace officer is not entitled to an administrative appeal to contest his demotion from a supervisory position during the "promotional" probationary period. Guinn v. County of San Bernardino, #E047532, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 692 (4th Dist.).
     Ohio court rescinds the demotion of a police captain to lieutenant. The city failed to prove the letter of demotion was served on the appellant, thus violating his Due Process rights. Deem v. Fairview Park, #93135, 2009 Ohio 6314, 2009 Ohio App. Lexis 5300, 30 IER Cases (BNA) 191 (8th Dist.).
    An involuntary transfer of a paramedic to a firefighter assignment was not a demotion, because there was no reduction in pay. Castello v. Seattle Fire Dept., #09-010 (Seattle PSCSC, 2010).
     Pennsylvania arbitrator sustains a five-day suspension of a sergeant for assaulting a subordinate officer, but overturns a demotion. The bargaining agreement did not specify demotion as a disciplinary option and a suspension plus demotion was double punishment for the same misconduct. City of Duquesne and Teamsters L-205, 126 LA (BNA) 1723 (Felice, 2009).
     Federal court rejects a suit brought by a former highway patrol lieutenant who was reclassified as a sergeant-II after the patrol merged with the state police. He retained the same annual pay and he lacked a property right to retain the title of lieutenant. Carlberg v. New Hampshire Dept. of Safety, #08-cv-230-PB, 2009 DNH 68, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 40304 (D.N.H.).
     Demotion of a deputy police chief to lieutenant was without procedural error. It was an at-will position and she lacked a property interest in her position as assistant chief. She was demoted following a scandal involving her division; the chief had lost confidence in her leadership ability. Saucedo-Falls v. Kunkle, #07-11177, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 23011 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     Appellate panel dismisses the appeal of a psychologist who voluntarily accepted a demotion when his academic credentials were challenged by management. The appellant failed to show that management misled him or was derelict in supplying him with information that he needed to make his choice. Rathbun v. Veterans Affairs, #2008-3182, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14766 (Unpub. Fed. Cir.).
     After a removal by a village council, an Illinois police chief is entitled to be restored to his prior rank before the promotion to chief. Szewczyk v. Bd. of Fire and Police Cmsnrs. of Richmond, #2-06-1163, 2008 Ill. App. Lexis 19 (2nd Dist.).
     Federal court refuses to dismiss a whistleblower action filed by a former police chief; his position was abolished by ordinance, he was reduced to lieutenant with no pay loss, and a public safety director assumed his administrative duties. "We cannot say as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could find that the actions taken in eliminating the position of chief of police ... did not amount to a wrongful intentional act or a wanton and willful disregard of [the plaintiff's] rights." The New Jersey whistleblower law allows a jury to award punitive damages. Ragan v. Fuentes, #1:05-cv-02825, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72605 (D.N.J.).
     N.Y. court determines that the act of reclassifying all other fire captains as deputy chiefs except the plaintiff, a disabled captain, was actually an unlawful demotion. Gresis v. Fairview Fire Dist., #06-22250, 2007 NY Slip Op 27018, 2007 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 122 (Sup. Westchester Co. 2007). [N/R]
     Arbitrator confirms a demotion from sergeant to patrol officer after the grievant failed to report that he struck a curb with his cruiser. His recent disciplinary record consisted of one suspension and five written reprimands, which was more than the entire police force combined. Instead of competently supervising others, the grievant was in need of close supervision. City of Richmond Heights and FOP L-57, 123 LA (BNA) 232 (Lalka, 2006). [N/R]
     New Mexico Supreme Court upholds the demotion of a police lieutenant. There was evidence that he lacked the experience, skill, and knowledge to be a watch commander and that he demonstrated poor judgment in handling a report during the first critical hours of the case. Archuleta v. Santa Fe Police Dept., #28,630, 137 N.M. 161, 108 P.3d 101, 2005-NMSC-006 (2005). {N/R}
     Involuntary transfer of a GS-6 firefighter to a GS-6 pharmacy technician was not a demotion, even though the reassignment resulted in less pay because of hours scheduled and overtime. Beckman v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, #04-3291, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 9207 (Fed. Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Florida appellate court holds that a probationary lieutenant, who was reduced to sergeant for inadequate performance was not entitled to a hearing. Grob v. Beluch, #4D03-4036, 889 So.2d 85, 2004 Fla. App. Lexis 13850(4th Dist. 2004). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rejects a challenge to a demotion where the employee was never eligible for the promotion she received. Barrett v. Social Secur. Admin., #02-3081, 309 F.3d 781, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 22425 (Fed Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     California appellate court holds that officers who are reassigned to lower pay grades or who are deselected from bonus positions have a property interest in those pay grades or bonus positions, which invokes due process rights. LAPPL v. Los Angeles, #B151027, 102 Cal. App.4th 85, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 911, 2002 Cal. App. Lexis 4653 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2002). {N/R}
     California appeals court holds that a predeprivation hearing is not required for a demotion or termination for economic reasons. Duncan v. Dept. of Personnel Admin., #B129036, 77 Cal.App.4th 1166, 2000 Cal. App. Lexis 60, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 257, 15 IER Cases (BNA) 1753. [2000 FP 69]
     Demotion of a sergeant to deputy sheriff for failing to follow the department manual regarding domestic violence investigations was not unreasonable. Huff v. Rock Island Co., 689 N.E.2d 1159 (Ill.App. 1998). {N/R}
     Sergeant who agreed to serve a year as a probationary sergeant could not appeal his demotion based on a minor, subsequent act. Doherty v. Sullivan, 29 Conn.App. 736, 618 A.2d 56 (1992). [1993 FP 84]
     State supreme court concludes that the "power to discharge includes the lesser power to demote" a firefighter, allowing the city the power to demote, not fire, the employee. City of Las Vegas v. IAFF L-1285, 824 P.2d 285, 108 Nev. 64, 1992 Nev. Lexis 20. {N/R}
     Sergeant who was demoted to station officer could not sue for "constructive discharge" because he was still employed. Pethoud v. City of Peoria, 8 IER Cases (BNA) 882 (D.Ariz. 1993). See also: Rodriguez-Pinto v. Tirado-Delgado, 982 F.2d 34 (1st Cir. 1993).[1993 FP 115-6]
     Non-tenured ranks can be abolished, and personnel holding those ranks are lawfully demoted. Untch v. Chaddock, 520 N.E.2d 118 (Ind.App. 1988).
     When chief is demoted to his prior rank, the person with least seniority in that rank must be demoted to rank immediately below. Anderson v. City of Sioux Falls, 384 N.W.2d 666 (S.D. 1986).
     Fire lieutenant who benefited from a rigged promotional exam could be demoted, even though he was not part of the scheme. Cassella v. Civil Service Cmsn. of New Britain, 4 Conn. App. 359, 494 A.2d 909.
     Firefighters who were demoted without charges filed or a hearing win suit for breach of contract. City of Terre Haute v. Brown, 483 N.E.2d 786 (Ind.App. 1985).
     Court upholds demotion of lieutenant who failed performance exam two years straight. Frego v. Jonesboro Civil Service Cmsn., 684 S.W.2d 258 (Ark. 1985).
     Fire Dept. could demote superior officers for cause when it reduced the number of engine companies. Clark and Stephenson v. State Personnel Board, 314 S.E.2d 658 (Ga. 1984).
     Position of "Technical Captain" with additional pay was a rank; reassignment of incumbent was a demotion. City of Indianapolis v. Sherman, 409 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind.App. 1980).
     Chief could reassign detectives to uniform duties without a hearing, even though pay reductions ensued; productivity in issue. City of Hartford and Local 308, Intnl. Bro. of Police Officers, Case #8081-A-618, Conn. Bd. of Med. and Arb. (1981); Town of Guilford and Capt. C.F. Collins Jr., Conn. St. Bd. of Labor Rltns, Case #MPP-3875, Decision #1930 (1980). FP #82, p.4]. But see White v. Co. of Sacramento, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191 (1982) for exception.
     Appellate court holds that persons on probationary promotion are not entitled to seek court review of demotions. Bordelon v. Dept. of Police, 389 So.2d 907 (La. App. 1980).
     Idealistic sergeant, critical of methods, was subject of intense surveillance. Appellate court affirms demotion for minor infractions discovered during surveillance. Leininger v. City of Bloomington, 299 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 1980).
     Law requiring a hearing for removal does not require a hearing for demotion. Sheridan v. Town of Merrillville, 428 N.E.2d 268 (Ind.App. 1981).
     Captains, promoted three years earlier in spite of failing test scores, were lawfully demoted by new chief. Whalen v. City of Atlanta, 539 F.Supp. 1202 (N.D. Ga. 1982).
     Employee cannot compel his own demotion. Bartek v. Firemen's and Policemen's Civil Service Cmsn. of Temple, 584 S.W.2d 358 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979).
     "Reorganization" does not permit mass demotions of civil service employees; chief must be restored to former rank. State ex rel Warzyniak v. Grenchik, 379 N.E.2d 997 (Ind.App. 1978).
     First amendment protects employees from demotion from untenured positions. Morris v. City of Kokomo, 381 N.E.2d 510 (Ind.App. 1978).
     Indiana court of appeals rules that civil service fire officers can be demoted without cause; no reasons need be stated. Jenkins v. Hatcher, Mayor, 322 N.E.2d 117 (Ind.App. 1975).
     See also: Free Speech, Promotional Rights; Reductions in Force; and especially, Transfers.