The review refusal in Jeffes leaves in place a lower court ruling that the county may be liable for the actions of a sheriff who allegedly fostered a "code of silence" among his deputies in violation of the First Amendment. The FOP matter leaves alone a lower court determination that white Miami, Florida, police officers who were victims of reverse discrimination are entitled to only a pro rata share of the wage differential between the ranks in dispute. The officers had sought a larger measure of monetary damages. Likewise, the Breaux inaction costs two Texas peace officers a multi-million dollar judgment in their favor. A jury had awarded the money for retaliation against the officers who had reported corruption in the department. An appeals court overturned the award finding that the officers had not suffered any direct adverse employment action. The appellate court ruling remains in place.

Also denied consideration was Bryant v. City of Chicago, Illinois, No. 99-1985. The rejection of the Bryant case rebuffs efforts to challenge on race discrimination grounds the Chicago Police

One case from the new term, Loudon County, Tennessee v. Sowards, No. 00-77, was also rejected by the court. Justices passed on the opportunity to revisit the question of the extent to which sheriff's department employees are policymakers and thus subject to dismissal on political affiliation grounds. In the Sowards case, a female jailer was discharged allegedly in retaliation for her husband running for sheriff against the incumbent. Following dismissal of the matter at the trial level, a federal appeals court ruled that Tennessee law protects jailers in small counties from political retaliation and the sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. High court inaction leaves this ruling in place and the matter is remanded for trial.

Coincidentally, a somewhat similar issue is raised in Tehama County, California v. DiRuzza, No. 00-398. Here, a deputy alleges she lost her job for supporting the incumbent sheriff who was defeated in his re-election bid. After the trial court's dismissal of the matter, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that California deputy sheriffs are not policymakers and thus are protected from political retaliation. This circuit joins the Third and Sixth in so holding. Federal appeals courts for the Fourth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have held that deputy sheriffs are subject to political retaliation while the Fifth Circuit applies a balancing test on the question. The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will use this opportunity to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeal. 

In making the announcement, Sam Cabral, IUPA International President, said, "When we looked past the hype, symbolism and packaging of the candidates and focused on the record, we felt the choice was clear." Cabral cited Gore's record of supporting important law enforcement issues such as purchase of protective vests and collective bargaining for all police officers as well as federal funding of community policing officers

The IUPA joins the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) in supporting the Vice President. The nation's largest police labor group, the Fraternal Order of Police, has endorsed the Texas governor's election bid. Several state labor organizations, as well as a few major municipal unions, have not announced an endorsement in the race.

The Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA), which represents Chicago police supervisors, had invited the Vice President to speak to its convention. However, prior to the convention, Mayor Richard Daley announced plans to reinstate mandatory retirement for public safety employees at age 63, without making concessions for personnel who do not possess 20 years of service. This service factor is a major point of contention between the city and the union. With 20 years on the job, pension benefits amount to about $2,000 a month. Without the 20 years of service, benefits drop to 25 percent of that amount, $500. More than

"Al Gore made it perfectly clear that he's an organized labor kind of guy," stated Jeffrey Wilson, president of the Chicago Police Lieutenants Association. "He (Gore) also said, `You know the quality of a person by the friends they keep.' Well, his friends are Mayor Daley and his brother Bill."

Why the anger at Gore? William Daley, brother of the mayor, is Gore's campaign chairman. The PBPA anger also stems from a promise that the Vice President allegedly made to mediate the retirement dispute. 

A Gore campaign spokesperson expressed surprise at the flap, saying that the Vice President had been endorsed by "every key law enforcement organization" around the country.

The DOJ has alleged that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has engaged in a broad pattern of misconduct that has resulted in numerous

LAPPL officials claim that police officers have not had sufficient input in the drafting of the proposed consent decree. The union has accused the city of moving too hastily in agreeing to DOJ oversight. Additionally, the union, which hired its own consultant to recommend methods of improving

The efforts of the DOJ are based on a 1996 federal statute that authorizes suits against law enforcement agencies that engage in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional behavior. To date, only a half dozen such suits have been initiated nationwide. Critics of the statute assert that the efforts place municipal police under federal oversight contrary to the traditional American notion of local control of law enforcement. Proponents of the law say such suits are necessary to deal with egregious and pervasive incidents of police misconduct.

Cases of interest

HELD: Prior case law holds that stray remarks of a derogatory character are not evidence of actionable discrimination. This rule applies when someone who is not involved in an employment decision makes those remarks. However, when an individual who is a decision-maker utters such derogatory remarks around the time of, or in reference to, the adverse employment action, then it may be possible to infer that the decision-maker was influenced by those remarks. While there is evidence that the city could not afford to give pay raises to the supervisors, the conflicting evidence raises the right of the plaintiffs to a judicial determination. The question is also raised whether the denial of a raise is an "adverse employment action" necessary to serve as the basis for a suit. The idea behind requiring proof of adverse employment action is simply that the federal statute that forbids employment discrimination is not intended to reach every bigoted act or gesture that a worker might encounter in the workplace. Prior case law holds that pay bonuses are not an adverse employment action because they are sporadic, irregular, and wholly discretionary on the part of

HELD: Pursuant to the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. For a law to be clearly established, the law must have earlier been

HELD: It is well established that the state may not retaliate against an employee on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in free speech. In making such determination of whether speech is constitutionally protected it must be shown that the speech touches upon a matter of public concern. To involve a matter of public concern the speech must relate to a matter of political, social, or other concern to the community. If that hurdle is cleared a balancing test is imposed that balances the interest of the employee as a citizen in commenting on matters of public concern against the interest of the employer in promoting the efficiency of the public service. In Kuchenreuther's case, none of the matters touched upon topics of public concern. The posting on the bulletin board regarding contribution to the charity was not constitutionally protected speech. The posting was made anonymously and used department letterhead in violation of department policy. Her motive was purely to voice an opinion about the matter, not to raise particular public awareness. Likewise, the questions about the handcuffs related to an internal operations issue. While issues of police protection and public safety are matters of public concern, not every aspect of internal operations fits within that definition. The removal of the postings on the bulletin board is not protected by the First Amendment. They were removed because Kuchenreuther failed to comply with departmental posting requirements of having the matters date stamped and reviewed by a supervisor, not because of the content of the postings. Finally, Kuchenreuther herself initiated the transfer to the property control bureau. On the form she failed to indicate an assignment preference. Thus, the transfer was of her own making because she refused to comply with department rules regarding the proper means to fill out the form. None of these matters are protected by the First Amendment. Summary judgment for city affirmed. [Kuchenreuther v. City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 221 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2000)]

HELD: Kehrer's first claim alleges sex discrimination. It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire an individual because of their sex. Sex discrimination can be established by demonstrating that there was intentional discrimination or by showing through circumstantial evidence sex discrimination. This circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination may be shown through a mosaic of suspicious timing, comparative evidence showing that employees similar situated received better treatment, or that the individual was qualified for and failed to receive the desired treatment and the employer's stated reason is unworthy of belief. Here, Kehrer presents no evidence of suspicious timing or of differential treatment compared to other similarly situated candidates. The only remaining avenue is for her to show a pretext. Her name, however, was removed from the list because she failed to disclose information about the speeding ticket and the previous disciplinary action as well as unfavorable references. Failure to disclose information is by itself cause for a candidate's disqualification. The city has offered credible reasons for removing Kehrer's name from the eligibility list. She has produced no evidence to cast suspicion on the city's reasons for not hiring her. Accordingly, it is entitled to summary judgment on her gender discrimination claim. Similarly, she has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. At the time the civil service commission ordered her name removed from the list it was unaware of the filing of the EEOC complaint. In addition, the city has shown legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for removing her name from the eligibility list. Kehrer lied on her application to become a police officer. The city

HELD: To establish a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that he suffers from a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA, that he can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and was terminated because of the disability. The ADA defines "disability" as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual. Mazza's impairment fits the definition of a disability. Any physiological disorder or condition affecting the digestive system is considered to be a physical impairment within the meaning of the ADA. Likewise, his condition affects major life activities. In particular, his medical condition affects Mazza's ability to care for himself and to work. He has failed, however, to establish that he is able to perform the essential functions of the position of police officer, with or without accommodation. An individual is

HELD: Under Illinois law only corporate authorities have the power to bind the city in a contract unless that power is delegated to another. The general rule is that when an employee of a municipal corporation purports to bind the corporation by contract without prior approval, in violation of an applicable statute, such a contract is utterly void. Illinois statute provides that no contract that creates liability for a city for expenditure of money is valid unless approved by a majority of the city council. Additionally, statute provides that no contract made by a city is valid unless an appropriation has previously been made concerning that contract. Any such contract is null and void. The record in this case shows the addendum was entered into without prior appropriation of funds to cover its obligation. It further shows that it was not approved by the city council. Thus, it is clear that the addendum is void and unenforceable. Affirmed for city. [City of Belleville v. Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council, 732 N.E.2d 592 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)]

HELD: As a general rule there is a strong presumption favoring the validity of a decision by an administrative tribunal. A court's review is limited to determining whether the decision was in excess of jurisdiction, unsupported by competent and substantial evidence, or was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Due weight must be given to the police board's expertise and its opportunity to observe witnesses. If the evidence supports two contrary findings, the court must uphold the board's factual determination. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board on matters of fact. In this case, no one disputes that at some point during the incident a pursuit ensued. The issue in contention is where the pursuit began. Did it begin when the driver made the U-turn as Bickl argues or when the officers first stopped the van? Testimony reveals that the van did not have a license plate, that the driver failed to cooperate with the officers, and that he resisted arrest by fleeing. The evidence is clear that the driver would be under arrest once he was apprehended. The police board as finder of fact could determine from the evidence that the driver was evading arrest and that the pursuit

HELD: In Pennsylvania, a review of an interest arbitration dispute is limited to questions regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitrators, the regularity of the proceedings, an excess of the arbitrators powers, and a deprivation of constitutional rights. Under Pennsylvania law arbitrators are prohibited from making awards that are outside the definition of bargainable issues set forth by state statute. The statute in question specifically states that the subject of pensions is a bargainable issue. However, prior case law has held that the administration of pension funds is not a bargainable issue. The state pension law states that the retirement board shall allocate excess investment