COA: Firefighter's e-mail didn't harm department

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A firefighter shouldn't have been fired for his e-mail commenting on the financial situation of the township's fire department because the e-mail didn't impact the effectiveness of the department, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today. The appellate court found the trial court also erred in ruling that municipality liability couldn't be established based on the conduct of the firefighter chief.

In Bradley J. Love v. Robert Rehfus, individually and in his capacity as fire chief of the Sugar Creek Township Fire Department, and Sugar Creek Township, No. 30A01-0905-CV-250, volunteer and part-time firefighter Bradley J. Love appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of fire chief Robert Rehfus and Sugar Creek Township in Love's suit following his termination with the department. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that Love didn't engage in protected First Amendment activity.

Love was fired by Rehfus after he learned about an e-mail Love sent from his personal e-mail account on his home computer to people affiliated with the New Palestine Cadet Football League. In the e-mail, Love explained his support for volunteer firefighter Bob Boyer, who was running for township trustee against incumbent C.O. Montgomery. Love's e-mail said officers had been given SUVs, which they drove all over the state, and don't respond to emergency runs after 4 p.m. He also discussed the township's tax rate and firefighter personnel.

Rehfus told Love in a letter he was fired because he lied in the e-mail, which is conduct unbecoming firefighter, and failed to be truthful. Rehfus and many of the firefighters supported Montgomery for re-election.

People who work for the government are still citizens and as long as they speak as a citizen about matters of public concern, they must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary for their employers to operate effectively and efficiently, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

Using Pickering v. Bd. Of Ed. Of Township High School Dist., 205 Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S. Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), and City of Kokomo v. Kern, 8520 N.E.2d 623 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), the appellate court concluded the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Caselaw says if no damage is proven, then the statements may be protected even if they are false, Judge Riley wrote.

"Overall, while the specific impact of the speech weighs more heavily in favor of the government entity when paramilitary organizations are involved because of the public safety implications, here, we cannot say that Love's e-mail impacted the operational effectiveness of the fire department," she wrote. "There is a complete lack of evidence suggesting intra-department disruption or any other actual or significant harm to the fire department. In absence of any evidenced harm, we do not need to evaluate whether Love's statements were false and recklessly made and whether this warrants the denial of First Amendment protection."

The Court of Appeals also held Sugar Creek Township could be held liable because the decision to fire Love was made by a policy-maker of the fire department. At the time he was fired, Love was on probation for unrelated matters and Rehfus had final authority to terminate Love. His decision represented county policy and gave rise to municipal liability.

The case was remanded for further proceedings.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?