Review by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9thCircuit of a ruling made by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that the demotion of a Chief Fire Marshall to an Inspector was a part of the City Council’s audit to restructure several district departments and not a violation of Free Speech by use of retaliation.
shenika
First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech
TITLE AND CITATION: Skaarup v. N. Las Vegas, 320 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2003)
TYPE OF ACTION: Review by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9thCircuit of a ruling made by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that the demotion of a Chief Fire Marshall to an Inspector was a part of the City Council’s audit to restructure several district departments and not a violation of Free Speech by use of retaliation.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In December 1997, Chief Fire Marshall Elmer Skaarup was notified that the city was eliminating two of his five inspector positions. One of the positions was held by a man and the other by a woman named, Mary Griego. Griego later spoke with the Chief Fire Marshall stating that she was upset about being transferred to a substantially lower-paying position. Skaaruptook the matter of concern to his superior, Fire Chief Michael Massey. Massey explained that he had no idea of the inspector eliminations and that a deal must’ve been made between the Union and the City. He went on to express how the eliminations show how City Management Importuna manages business between employees and the Union. The next day, at a staff meeting, Chief Massey let the team know that the Union would fight for Mary Griego’s job. Additionally, he spoke with Fire Marshall Skaarup stating how he was not surprised by the pattern of behavior The City has been taking against the female employees. Skaarup was disappointed because the two inspectors Dominic Gonzalez and Mary Griego were his best performers.
On December 11, 1997, Skaarup decided to speak separately with two female employees outside of his unit. He spoke with Captain Stephanie Wuthrich and Engineer Terri Tarbett because he liked them and wanted to see how they felt about the accusations of discrimination. He went on to say that Importunawas targeting single women over 40 and feels as though the unit “sold Mary Griego down the road”. There are no reports of Chief Fire Marshall Skaarup speaking with any of the female employees in the alleged discrimination pattern. In January, the two ladies sent a neutral memo to Importunaabout the conversations they had with Skaarup.
On April 28, 1998, then Chief Marshall Elmer Skaarup was charged with violating the Fire Department’s Rules of Conduct. On May 21st of the same year, the new Fire Chief, Robert Dodge not only sustained the judgment but also suspended Skaarup for eight days without pay for making untrue, unfounded, derogatory statements that could undermine the city management and discredit the fire department. Chief Dodge additionally considered two prior offenses made by Skaarup. One for abusively speaking with an employee and another was setting the personal belongings of a homeless person on fire. Skaarup did not appeal.
Almost a year later, on April 7, 1999, the City Council voted to approve an independent of all the City’s departments. The audit was conducted by a national consulting group. In October 1999 the group concluded the audit by making 92 recommendations that included adding and deleting some positions. The cityimmediately accepted and approved the recommendations and directed staff to begin implementing the changes. On February 15, 2000, Elmer Skaarup was notified that he would be reclassified from Chief Marshall down to an Inspector. He felt this decision was in retaliation for the remarks he had made.
On July 26, 1999, he filed a suit against The City. April 10. 2000 he amended his suit and charged that the reclassification of his position was in retaliation for statements he had made and was a violation of his free speech rights. On June 28, 2001, Elmer Skaarup moved for partial judgment on the claim violating his freedom of speech. On the next day, The City moved for summary judgment on all claims. On October 9, 2001, the District Court utilized a balancing test method and denied Skaarup’s motion and granted the City’s. On November 8, 2001, Skaarup filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
Elmer Skaarup: Contends that his demotion was a result of retaliation from the City of North Las Vegas due to his speaking on how the City Management discriminates against women in the Fire Department. He contends the actions violate his First Amendment Freedom of Speech Rights.
City of North Las Vegas:Contends that the reclassification of Skaarup from Chief Fire Marshall to Fire Inspector was a result of a City-wide motion to restructure City Districts. They contend it had nothing to do with prior retaliation of prior incidents.
ISSUE: If a supervisor feels one of his employees is a victim of discrimination by the company, does he/she have the right to free speech by privately sharing his views, and seeking the opinion of other interested parties?
DECISION: Yes, he had the expressed right to speak with the two fire employees since they were involved in issues concerning women firefighters. It showed his intent to uncover wrongdoing and not just a form of spreading a rumor. Therefore, the ruling was overturned favoring the plaintiff.
REASONING: The court applied the reasoning of balancing.The actions of The City were in retaliation for Skaarup using his free speech to address what he felt was discrimination against women in the fire department. The issue was a public concern and a motivating factor for the disciplinary actions taken against him. Furthermore, The City applied punishment toward Skaarupfor speaking about what he heard from his trusted superior without speaking with his chief or ever showing proof that the allegations were false.
RULE OF LAW: Balancing constitutional protection for a public employee’s speech weighs when the nature of the speech is essential to honoring public responsibilities and the other party fails to reach a burden of proof.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
