 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cassidy v. Salt Lake County Fire Civil Service Council3/4/1999
h the trial court that Cassidy "carried his concerns far beyond his right to address a public concern and [that] his grievance became a vendetta against the fire department." The record indicates Cassidy's intent was to undermine his supervising officers and create a disruptive atmosphere in the department. For example, Cassidy admitted he liked "screwing around" with the administration and thought they were "stupid." In 1990, Cassidy properly filed his grievance regarding the inspection protocol modification; however, he undermined his fire chief's position by going directly to Chief Hinman's superior--outside the grievance process--to influence the fire chief's decision. Cassidy also threatened Deputy Chief Berry concerning the wildland fire crew, saying he would "take action to see that [the department] didn't hire those people." In addition, the tape-recorder incident in November 1992 bears upon the context in which department officials decided to pass over Cassidy. Cf. Umbehr, 116 S. Ct. at 2352 (explaining, even if plaintiff prevailed, "facts discovered after termination that would have led to a later termination anyway . . . would be relevant in assessing what remedy is appropriate").
Actions such as these tended to disrupt the efficient management of the fire department and, as such, Cassidy cannot lay claim to First Amendment protection. Also significant to our analysis is the fact that the fire department is not unlike a military organization, which relies on harmony and loyalty not only among the rank and file but also between firefighters and their supervisors. See, e.g., Norton v. Nicholson, 543 N.E.2d 1053, 1061 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)(stating First Amendment "does not require [the fire department to] tolerate action which it reasonably believed would disrupt its operations, undermine the authority of its Fire Chief and destroy working relationships within the Department"), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 938, 110 S. Ct. 3217 (1990). Dissension in the ranks, especially when that dissension threatens trust and the chain of command in emergency situations, should not stand in the way of the fire department's duty to protect the safety of the public and the safety of its personnel. Thus, " hen close working relationships are essential to fulfilling public responsibilities, a wide degree of deference to the employer's judgment is appropriate." Connick, 461 U.S. at 151-52, 103 S. Ct. at 1692. We believe such deference is appropriate in this case.
We do not mean to suggest that firefighters have no room to question the legitimacy of their superior's actions. Each public employee's First Amendment claim must be considered on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 154; 103 S. Ct. at 1694 (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 569, 88 S. Ct. at 1735); Anderson, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 1225. In this instance, however, the public concerns involved, when weighed against the fire department's significant interests in maintaining order and efficiency, simply do not justify overruling the Council's decision.
Because " he Pickering balance requires full consideration of the government's interest in the effective and efficient fulfillment of its responsibilities to the public," Connick, 461 U.S. at 150, 103 S. Ct. at 1692, we conclude the Council did not violate Cassidy's First Amendment rights when it refused him a promotion. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decision.
CONCLUSION
An adverse employment action, for purposes of First Amendment scrutiny, includes a failure to promote. Further, Cassidy's speech addressed public concerns and thus was protected speech. The trial court did not err, however, when it refused to find the department violated Cassidy's First Amendment fr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Utah Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|