Brian Swetlik v. Kevin Crawford
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25589
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Detective Brian Swetlik (Manitowoc PD) publicly and via the union accused Police Chief Perry Kingsbury of instructing officers to lie to jail staff and threatening officers for noncompliance after a recorded phone call about returning a suspect for a home-cooked meal.
- The police union presented a 37-item grievance list and demanded the chief’s resignation; Kingsbury requested an outside investigation by DeWitt Ross & Stevens to evaluate those complaints.
- The investigators interviewed Swetlik (he initially misstated/interpreted parts of the call, later obtained and listened to the recording) and recommended termination of both Kingsbury and Swetlik for misconduct/untruthfulness.
- The Manitowoc Common Council voted to file termination charges; Swetlik was placed on paid administrative leave; the Police & Fire Commission hearing officer later recommended dismissal of the charge and Swetlik was reinstated.
- Swetlik sued the mayor and council members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation for his union-related speech; district court granted summary judgment for defendants and the Seventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that defendants reasonably relied on the investigation’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute prosecutorial immunity | Defendants waived immunity not applicable; Swetlik argued action was not protected by absolute immunity | Defendants claimed absolute prosecutorial immunity for filing charges | No — absolute immunity unavailable; action was an employment/administrative decision, not prosecutorial act, so only qualified immunity potentially applies |
| Protected speech (Garcetti: spoke as private citizen?) | Swetlik: union grievances and presentations were made as a private citizen/union member | Defendants: statements were made pursuant to official duties and thus unprotected under Garcetti | Mixed — court assumed some statements (union/grievances) were made as a private citizen, so Garcetti did not bar protection for those contexts |
| Matter of public concern | Swetlik: accusations about chief’s integrity and department practices implicated public safety and department management | Defendants: speech was personal or internal, not public concern | Court: Swetlik’s union-based allegations implicated public concern (police integrity/public safety), so this element could be satisfied |
| Pickering balancing / employer’s reasonable reliance on investigation | Swetlik: his interpretation of the call was reasonable; defendants used the investigation as pretext to retaliate | Defendants: after an adequate outside investigation, they reasonably believed Swetlik had lied and were justified in filing charges | Held for defendants — undisputed evidence showed they reasonably relied on the outside investigation’s findings; that reliance outweighed Swetlik’s speech interest, so no First Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity doctrine)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (scope of prosecutorial immunity)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public-employee speech made pursuant to official duties not protected)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (balancing employee speech vs. employer interest)
- Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (employer may rely reasonably on investigation; plurality reasonableness test)
- Wright v. Illinois Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 40 F.3d 1492 (employer may defeat claim if supervisors reasonably believed testimony false after adequate investigation)
- Cloe v. City of Indianapolis, 712 F.3d 1171 (standard of review for summary judgment in § 1983 cases)
- New West, LP v. Joliet, 491 F.3d 717 (Noerr-Pennington applies to petitions by elected officials)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (defamation alone, absent deprivation of a more tangible right, does not give rise to constitutional injury)