Fields v. City of Tulsa, 753 F.3d 1000

Background

Captain Paul Fields, a Tulsa Police Department commander, refused an order to arrange that officers (two per shift plus a supervisor) attend a “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day” hosted by the Islamic Society of Tulsa after the Society was protected from a threat. He emailed superiors stating the order conflicted with his religious convictions and that he would not order subordinates to attend.
Deputy Chief Webster issued the Attendance Order after volunteers were insufficient; he clarified officers were not required to participate in any religious observance and that attendance could be accomplished by assigning others to go for short, discretionary tours timed to avoid prayer services.
Fields refused to comply, was transferred, investigated by Internal Affairs, and ultimately suspended (80 hours total) for violating department rules (failure to obey orders and conduct unbecoming), with the transfer and discipline placed in his personnel record.
Fields sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of (1) Free Exercise, (2) Establishment Clause, (3) Freedom of Association, and (4) Equal Protection; he later sought to amend to add an Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim; the district court denied leave to amend and granted summary judgment to defendants.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed: it held the Attendance Order did not burden Fields’ free exercise because he could assign others to attend and never asserted assigning others would violate his beliefs; no Establishment Clause violation because a reasonable, informed observer would not view the order or attendance as government endorsement of Islam; no association or equal-protection violations; and amendment to add ORFA and retaliation claims would be futile.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Free Exercise: Did the Attendance Order burden Fields’ religious exercise?	Fields: Order compelled him (or his subordinates) to attend a mosque event, violating his religious convictions.	Defendants: Order allowed Fields to assign others to attend; it did not force personal participation or religious practice.	Held: No burden — order did not require Fields personally to attend; he never informed superiors that assigning others would violate his beliefs.
Establishment Clause: Did the Order or attendance endorse Islam?	Fields: Attendance and event conduct conveyed government endorsement of Islam (timing, content, materials).	Defendants: Community-policing secular purpose; attendance promoted outreach and equal treatment of religious groups; participation was discretionary and nonreligious in purpose.	Held: No violation — reasonable, informed observer would not perceive endorsement; secular purpose and context support neutrality.
Freedom of Association: Did discipline force unwanted association?	Fields: He was compelled to associate with the Islamic Society contrary to conscience.	Defendants: Order only required brief, outsider contact; no requirement to join or endorse the organization.	Held: No violation — Attendance did not force membership or endorsement; equivalent to admitting outsiders for limited purpose.
Retaliation / Leave to Amend: Should Fields be allowed to add ORFA and retaliation claims?	Fields: ORFA parallels First Amendment free-exercise protections; retaliatory discipline for filing suit violates speech/petition rights.	Defendants: Amendment would be futile because First Amendment claims fail; employer interests in discipline and efficiency outweigh speech interest.	Held: Denied — amendment futile: ORFA claim would fail for same reasons; retaliation claim fails under public-employee First Amendment balancing.

Key Cases Cited

Merrifield v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 654 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standards and view of facts in plaintiff’s favor)
Bauchman v. W. High Sch., 132 F.3d 542 (10th Cir. 1997) (free-exercise burden requires coercive or compulsory action)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (Establishment Clause tripartite test)
Am. Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2010) (apply Lemon and endorsement test in context)
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (O’Connor concurrence on endorsement test)
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (freedom not to associate distinguished from forced membership)
Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (First Amendment right to associate and not associate)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (limits on public-employee speech when made pursuant to official duties)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing public-employee speech against employer interests)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (employee speech public-concern analysis)
Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987) (consider manner, time, place; disruption to operations)
Lytle v. City of Haysville, 138 F.3d 857 (10th Cir. 1998) (employee whistleblowing weight and balancing factors)