Cillo v. City of Greenwood Village, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25863

Sgt. Cillo, a long-time GVPD sergeant, was terminated after the Motel 6 incident and as part of internal disciplinary actions.
The Union formed in 2007; Sgt. Cillo served as chapter president and pushed for collective bargaining, contrasting with the City’s leadership tied to the FOP.
Disputes over Union activity arose: the Command Staff opposed the Union and discussed it publicly; Cillo faced alleged anti-Union sentiments within leadership.
Motel 6 incident: a room entry involved unlawful entry/force; Cillo supported training/discipline focus, while others faced varying discipline.
Chief Perry adopted Lt. Harvey’s disciplinary recommendations despite internal disagreements, firing Cillo and two others; non-Union FTO Williams received milder discipline.
District court granted summary judgment to defendants; on appeal, court reverses, holding material issues of fact regarding motivation by Union activity and qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did termination violate Sgt. Cillo's First Amendment right to union association?	Cillo asserts Union activity was a substantial motivating factor.	Defendants argue no constitutional violation; discipline was a valid business decision.	Yes; disputed material facts on motive; right clearly established; reversal warranted.
Are individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity on the §1983 claim?	Rights were clearly established; conduct violated the Constitution.	No violation or clearly established standard not satisfied.	No; defendants not entitled to qualified immunity; summary judgment reversed.
Should City liability under §1983 be addressed on remand?	City may be liable under §1983 for union-retaliation.	Liability analysis for municipality requires Pembaur/Monell standards; not addressed here.	Remanded to address City liability consistent with this opinion.

Morfin v. Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 906 F.2d 1434 (10th Cir. 1990) (unconstitutionality of retaliating against an employee for participating in a union was clearly established)
Smith v. Ark. State Highway Emps., 441 U.S. 463 (Supreme Court 1979) (First Amendment rights of public employees to association and speech)
Butcher v. City of McAlester, 956 F.2d 973 (10th Cir. 1992) (unions rights and retaliation standards in public employment)
Gardetto v. Mason, 100 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1996) (Pickering/Connick test framework for public employee retaliation claims)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (Supreme Court 1968) (four-factor test for public employee speech/association retaliation)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (Supreme Court 1983) (public employee rights and balance between employee and employer interests)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (Supreme Court 1986) (municipal liability requires official action or policy)
Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court 1978) (municipal liability for official policy or custom)
Koessel v. Sublette Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 717 F.3d 736 (10th Cir. 2013) (public employee rights and §1983 considerations in the circuit)
McCook v. Spriner Sch. Dist., 44 F. App’x. 896 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished opinion cited in district court’s framework)