The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently found that a city’s interest in the proper functioning of its police department outweighed two police officers’ interest in their speech regarding public concerns. Cochran v. City of Los Angeles, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 20688 (9th Cir. Cal. Aug. 17, 2000).
Two Los Angeles police officers, Anderson and Cochran, had developed negative relationships with a particular police commander at the Foothill Division of the LAPD. The two employees made numerous comments to their superiors regarding personnel decisions made by the commander. They also complained about other personnel decisions made regarding a particular employee. Furthermore, Anderson investigated an incident involving this particular employee, after being told not to, and he went over his supervisor’s head to report the alleged incident and racial problems within the department.
Anderson and Cochran were both laterally transferred out of the Foothill Division. They filed civil rights lawsuits alleging the LAPD had retaliated against them for exercising their First Amendment Rights to free speech. Following a jury verdict in favor of Anderson and Cochran, the LAPD appealed.
The Court of Appeals found that Anderson and Cochran’s speech involved matters of public concern because the speech was relevant to the public’s evaluation of its police department. However, the Court then addressed the issue of whether the LAPD’s interest in promoting the efficiency of its public service outweighed Anderson and Cochran’s interest in speaking.
The Court found that, by challenging decisions of superiors, Anderson and Cochran’s speech impaired discipline by those superiors. The Court further found that Anderson and Cochran’s speech was conducive to racial and gender tension, because the speech caused the development of "camps" of people within the Foothill Division, often based on race or gender. Finally, the Court found that the time, place, and circumstances of Anderson and Cochran’s speech was important — they made their beliefs about their superiors known to other employees; they did not direct their speech to the public; and their speech involved internal office matters regarding one supervisor.
Thus, the Court of Appeals found that the City of Los Angeles’s interest in the proper functioning of its police department by transferring Anderson and Cochran outweighed any public concern about the content of Anderson and Cochran’s speech. The Court of Appeals dismissed the civil rights claims.
The legal principles of this case also apply to school boards and the governing boards of other public agencies. In making personnel decisions where employee speech is involved, a governing board must weigh its interests in the proper functioning of the public agency against the employee’s interest in speaking out on matters of public concern. It would also be prudent to consult with the public agency’s legal counsel before taking personnel action against an employee based on employee speech.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.