Jackler v. Byrne
658 F.3d 225
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Jackler joined Middletown Police Department as a probationary officer in Jan 2005; Byrne was MPD Chief, Rickard and Freeman were lieutenants; Board of Police Commissioners made hiring/retention decisions based on Byrne/Rickard/Freeman’s recommendations.
- On Jan 5, 2006, Jones alleged Metakes punched him during an arrest; Jones filed a civilian complaint alleging excessive force with MPD; Jones’s complaint warned about false statements.
- Jackler witnessed Metakes’s conduct and prepared a truthful supplementary report on Jan 11, 2006.
- Freeman directed Jackler to file a supplementary report; Jackler filed a truthful report and refused to alter it to conceal misconduct.
- On Jan 19, 2006, Byrne and Rickard, at a Board meeting, sought to have Jackler terminated using misrepresented information; the Board voted to dismiss him as a probationary officer.
- District court dismissed the complaint under Garcetti v. Ceballos and Weintraub, but the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal regarding First Amendment retaliation claims and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refusals to retract a truthful report are protected First Amendment speech | Jackler acted as a citizen when refusing to lie | Speech was under official duties, not citizen speech | Yes, protected as citizen speech on public concern |
| Whether Garcetti/Weintraub preclude protection for refusals to lie | Garcetti/Weintraub do not bar protection for refusals to lie | Speech in discharge of duties has no civilian analogue | Garcetti/Weintraub do not bar protection for refusals to lie when civilian analogue exists. |
| Whether defendants' actions against Jackler were retaliatory for protected speech | Retaliation occurred for refusals to alter truthful report | Actions justified by departmental interests and discipline | Retaliation claims survive the First Amendment analysis |
| Whether qualified immunity applies to defendants | Qualified immunity does not defeat First Amendment claim | Precedent unclear after Garcetti/Weintraub | Qualified immunity discussed; panel leaves for district court to decide merits in light of pre-existing law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (public employee speech analysis; two inquiries: public concern and citizen vs. employee speech)
- Weintraub v. Board of Education, 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2010) (speech with civilian analogue remains protected; limits of Garcetti/Weintraub)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (public employee speech protection; balancing test when speech concerns public matters)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balances government interests against employee speech on public concerns)
- Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1994) (plurality on speech by public employees in official settings)
- Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1987) (speech involving public concerns and civic duties)
- Kaluczky v. City of White Plains, 57 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 1995) (voluntarily testifying as a citizen protected; not a free pass for false statements)