Police officer’s suit alleging retaliation for political comment survives

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed summary judgment in favor of two Portage police officers and the city on a detective’s claim that he was transferred in retaliation for comments he made to a local newspaper following the mayoral primary election in 2007.

Roger Peele supported Steve Charnetzky’s Democratic primary campaign for mayor of Portage and worked on his campaign in his spare time. Charnetzky lost the primary to Olga Velazquez, who was endorsed by Porter County Sheriff David Lain. Peele spoke to the Northwest Indiana Times on May 8, 2007, criticizing coverage of the race and Lain’s endorsement. He said referring to Lain, “He won’t get any support here.”

The next day, the comments were published in the paper. On May 10, Peele was transferred to the desk-bound position of station duty officer by police chief Clifford Burch. Peele sued Burch, assistant chief Larry Jolley and the city, alleging retaliation and defamation.

In Roger L. Peele v. Clifford Burch, individually and as Portage Police Department Chief, et al., 12-3562, Peele only argued that the defendants punished him for his political speech in violation of the First Amendment.

He must first provide evidence that the defendants were motivated, at least in part, by a desire to retaliate against him for his protected speech. If he does that, then the defendants may counter by showing they would have reached the same result even without the protected speech.

The timing of his transfer was highly suspicious, the 7th Circuit noted. The court also pointed to the deposition of Joe Radic, the officer who held the station duty officer position prior to Peele. According to Radic, Burch told him that he would not have to work as the station duty officer any more because Peele was being transferred to the position because he “made the mayor mad.” This reference to the mayor was to Velazquez, who would presumably become mayor.

“If genuine, Burch’s statements would provide powerful evidence that Peele’s transfer was politically motivated. We think this evidence, combined with the suspicious timing of the transfer, could be enough to lead a reasonable jury to decide in Peele’s favor,” Judge Michael Kanne wrote.

This evidence also casts doubt on the defendants’ claims that they decided to transfer Peele on May 4 for other reasons but waited to tell him until May 10. The 7th Circuit remanded for further proceedings.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit