Ordinarily, civil servants have qualified immunity for actions arising from their official duties as government workers. But punishing a subordinate for testifying in a civil rights lawsuit clearly destroys that immunity.
Recent case: Martha was an administrative assistant for the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, primarily performing clerical duties such as answering the phone and making copies.
When a former police officer sued the department, alleging it violated his civil rights when he spoke out against the “war on drugs,” Martha received a subpoena to testify under oath about what she knew. She told the court that the assistant police chief, who recommended firing the officer, had a reputation as a “back stabber.”
Shortly after, the assistant chief told the police chief he thought Martha should be transferred and placed on probation. Soon, Martha found herself in a new job that required months of extra training. But just a few weeks later, the assistant chief recommended firing Martha for.
She sued, alleging that her termination was retaliation for testifying in a civil rights lawsuit. She added the assistant chief as a defendant. He claimed immunity.
The court rejected his request. It said that firing someone who testifies under subpoena in a civil rights suit violates that individual’s free speech rights. Because that concept is well accepted, the assistant chief couldn’t plead ignorance and wasn’t entitled to immunity. (Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace, No. 11-35343, 9th Cir., 2012)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Discipline only after documenting work slippage
- Establish an employee policy on responding to shoplifters--and be consistent in enforcement
- Employer must show reasonable basis for 'Honest belief'
- 'Rubber stamp theory' applies to Civil Service decisions, too