The high court reversed a 2015 ruling by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing Heffernan’s lawsuit on the grounds that a First Amendment retaliation claim can not be based on an employer’s perception of a worker’s actions. Those public employees are free to support the candidate of either political party (or neither) without fear of reprisals. Would such a situation run afoul of the First Amendment and create an actionable employment claim?
Advertisement
While voters went to the polls in five states Tuesday, electoral politics in a different context were on the Supreme Court’s mind too.
Spagnola in 2006 was running against incumbent mayor Jose “Joey” Torres. An aide to the incumbent Mayor saw Heffernan carrying a lawn sign for his friend, which led the Mayor to believe that Heffernan was supporting a direct rival. “But, because Heffernan concedes that he did not exercise his First Amendment rights, he has no cause of action”. Heffernan could not even vote in the election as he did not live in the city but his mother did. Assuming the exceptions to that rule don’t apply in Heffernan’s case, the court said the issue is whether a public employer who acts on the mistaken belief an employee is supporting a particular candidate also may be liable. Heffernan initially won over $100,000 at a jury trial but that decision was later vacated on appeal.
Paterson’s city attorney Domenick Stampone said in a statement the city is looking forward to showing the 3rd Circuit that Heffernan’s demotion was based on a city policy barring police from overt involvement in political campaigns.
Heffernan sued, claiming he was punished for engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
A view of the U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, in this October 13, 2015 file photo.
Heffernan went to a campaign distribution point where workers were giving out the signs. “I’m not breaking the law by flying my Trump flags; rather, the borough is breaking the law by having this unconstitutional ordinance on the books”. Is it a right primarily focused on the employee’s actual activity, or is it primarily focused on the employer’s motive? The most relevant prior decision is Waters v. Churchill, 511 US 661, 9 IER Cases 801 (1994), which held that a public employer’s reasonable but mistaken belief that a fired employee hadn’t engaged in protected speech was sufficient to shield the employer from Section 1983 liability. In coming to a decision without such guidance, the Court found the city’s motive in demoting him was of paramount importance.
The Supreme Court on April 26 rejected the idea that a factual mistake by a public employer could not be the basis for an employee’s First Amendment suit, even if the employee did not engage in protected political activity. It merely allows him to bring a First Amendment claim against the city for allegedly violating his rights.
However, the court noted that there was some evidence that the city may have demoted Heffernan because of a neutral policy prohibiting police officers from overt involvement in any political campaign. Whether a specific neutral policy meets constitutional muster is a question the Court left for another day.
This decision does not impact private sector businesses.
Advertisement
Public employees can sue, claiming their civil rights were violated, as long as their employers thought a constitutional right was in play, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
