ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT