Supreme Court reinstates
officer's retaliation lawsuit
In the February issue of NJ Cops Magazine, we reported on a case arising out of the demotion of a Paterson
law enforcement officer. In Heffernan v. City of Paterson,
the officer was demoted by the mayor and chief of police
because he was seen carrying signs for a political rival
who was running for the Office of Mayor. As it turned
out, Heffernan had nothing to do with the election campaign, but was merely collecting a sign for his bedridden
mother.
Heffernan sued and raised claims alleging a
retaliatory demotion based on the exercise of his First
Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association. Nonetheless, because he was not actually supporting the Mayor’s election opponent, his case was dismissed by the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals on the theory that an employer’s
retaliation based upon a factual mistake regarding the conduct of an
employee means that the employee suffered no legal harm for purposes
of civil rights laws.
Not surprisingly, Heffernan sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court,
which reversed the Third Circuit in a 6-2 decision issued on April 26. The
Supreme Court held that the focus should not be on whether an officer
did or did not actually exercise First Amendment rights to political
speech. Instead, the inquiry should involve the motives of the employer
in taking a retaliatory action. This was an issue which had never been
directly addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court and now clarifies that in
retaliation cases, in which there is proof that an employer believed an
employee exercised First Amendment rights, the officer’s civil rights are
violated when retaliation is based on that mistaken belief.
As the Court noted, “. . . it is the government’s reason for demoting
Heffernan which counts here. When an employer
demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the
employee from engaging in political activity that the First
Amendment protects, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment –
even if, as here, the employer makes a factual mistake
about the employee’s behavior.” The Supreme Court also
noted that the purpose of civil rights anti-retaliation laws
is not merely to protect the employee who engages in the
protected conduct. Instead, its broader purpose is
designed to deter an employer from discriminating
against anyone who might take similar actions, and to
insure employees are not intimidated from exercising
those rights in the future because of actions they have observed the
employer take with others. Those principles remain viable even in
instances where the employer retaliated based upon a mistaken
belief of the actions of the employee.
Unfortunately, it is still not over for Detective Heffernan. The
Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to determine
whether there was any other reason why the city of Paterson might
have taken action against the officer, such as whether he was
demoted for violating a different and neutral policy barring officers
from overt involvement in political campaigns.
The case has now been going on for several years. While one issue
has been answered, unfortunately the matter is still not resolved. Like
you, we wish that the process did not take so long to simply answer
one question. But at least that question was answered correctly and
should provide more protection for law enforcement officers and all
public employees. d
& ! !' !! ' ' ! !' ! !
& ! !' # ' ' # ' ! !
& ' %' ' '" ' !'
& ! ' '$ ! $ '
& !%' '
& ' ! ' !! ' '
& ' ! ' '!!' '
'!!
& !!' ' ' !! '
& !' '
' #' #' '
' ' ! '!!' '
10
NEW JERSEY COPS
■
MAY 2016
% 0 !+ ' '&%)0 # / 0
*!) 0 0
0 .$&% 0 &*# + ' 0
, '"0 0 0
#0 0
0
-0 0 0
0 ()0) ) 0 )' )0
' 0 #&&'0
' %)&%0 0
0
#0 0
0
-0 0