Some of the case digests do not have a link to the full opinion.
• Most Federal District Court opinions can be accessed via PACER. Registration is required; nominal fees
• BNA arbitration awards can be obtained for a fee, from BNA Plus
• Some of our links are to cases on the FindLaw website. Registration is required; no fees.

Discovery, Publicity and Media Rights

     A state criminal trial court properly barred a defendant from having his attorney view the entire personnel file of the officer who testified against him on a drug charge. After the court examined the entire file in camera, it was determined that only five pages of the file were relevant in any way to the officer's supposed motive to falsely testify or his credibility. The officer's general character was not an element of any charge, claim or defense in the proceeding. People v. Collins, 2013 IL App (2d) 110915, 985 N.E.2d 613, 2013 Ill. App. Lexis 73, 368 Ill. Dec. 806.

Handicap/Abilities Discrimination -- Specific Disabilities -- Other

     An officer was properly terminated as a result of the lingering effects of a stroke that he suffered. He was initially assigned to desk duties but also allowed to make traffic stops during his daily commute. After he was flustered after being unable to remember a word during a traffic stop, there was concern over his fitness for duty. He was ultimately placed on medical leave, put in a low stress position after evaluation coordinating emergency management services, but there were no funds for that position for the long term, and he was told that there were no available jobs for which he was medically cleared. He was not otherwise qualified under the Americans with Disabilities Act as repeated medical evaluations found him unfit for duty as an officer and no substitute jobs were available. He presented no evidence that he could handle stressful emergency situations. Koessel v. Sublette County Sheriff's Dept., #11-8099, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 9677 (10th Cir.).

Hearing (Audio) Impairment

     The U.S. Justice Department reached a settlement on claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act against two municipal employers on claims that their law enforcement agencies did not provide effective communication avenues to persons who are deaf. Allegations made concerning failure to provide such services to witnesses, crime victims, arrestees, detainees, and other members of the public were not resolved, as the settlement ended a pending investigation so no findings were made. The settlements were with the City of Englewood and the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office in Colorado. The investigations also concerned allegations that the agencies failed to establish and enforce sufficient policies and training regarding how to obtain qualified interpreters, when to obtain qualified interpreters, and how to interact with people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Some commentators stated that the settlements were very comprehensive and might provide models for how to comply with legal obligations regarding the deaf and hard of hearing among the U.S. law enforcement and detention agencies.

Pensions

     A federal appeals court upheld in general the District of Columbia's laws against "double dipping" by employees who retired from a job with the District and then were rehired in another job, attempting to draw both a full pension and a full salary. The plaintiffs were retired employees of the Metropolitan Police Department who drew a pension and were subsequently hired by another District agency. The court found that the claims that the salary offset violated the Fifth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause were meritless. It did, however, find that in slashing three of the plaintiffs' salaries, allegedly below the federal minimum wage, the District may have overstepped the boundaries of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), so further proceedings were needed.  Cannon v. District of Columbia, #12-7064, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 11130 (D.C. Cir.).

Pregnancy Discrimination

     The EEOC sued an employer, claiming that it unlawfully fired an employee because she was lactating and wanted to express milk at work. A federal appeals court overturned a trial court decision that doing this did not constitute sex discrimination, ruling that it did. Lactation was a related medical condition, in addition, for purposes of a claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. While the lawsuit involved a private employer, the reasoning would also apply to a public employer. EEOC v. Houston Funding II, #12-20220 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 10933 (5th Cir.).

Privacy

     The bargaining agent for county employees proposed altering the memorandum of understanding it had with the county's bargaining units to allow it to get a list of the home addresses and phone numbers of all employees represented, including those who had not joined the union. A county employee relations commission found that the county's refusal to provide such a list was an unfair labor practice. The California Supreme Court held that, despite any privacy interest employees might have in the information, it was outweighed by the interests favoring disclosure of this information to the union representing them. It stated, however, that there could be procedures fashioned to allow employees who object to opt out, but an intermediate appeals court, in attempting to impose a specific procedure for this on the parties exceeded its authority.County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm'n, #S191944, 2013 Cal. Lexis 4692.

Reductions in Force

   A police dispatcher was laid off by a town. A collective bargaining agreement gave him a right to be recalled for 12 months, but he was not recalled. A federal appeals court found that his procedural due process claim, that he had been deprived of his constitutionally protected right to be recalled, was viable. The bargaining agreement vested recall rights in individuals laid off and provided the employer with no discretion on rehiring qualified individuals with the required seniority. The claim, which was uncontested, that he received no notice before or after he was deprived of a protected property interest in employment was sufficient to assert a procedural due process claim. Neither a state law breach of contract lawsuit nor the available grievance procedures were adequate to fully address the alleged injury. Clukey v. Town of Camden, #12-1555, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 1018 (1st Cir.)

Sexual Harassment

     A volunteer fireman claimed that she was subjected to on the job sexual harassment. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of her claim, finding that she was not an "employee" for purposes of Title VII because she did not receive remuneration. Any benefits she received were entirely incidental to her volunteer services. Juino v. Livingston Parish Fire District No. 5, #12-30274, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 10934 (5th Cir.).

Union and Associational Activity

     Labor unions and state employees sued various state officials, claiming that they violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment right to freedom of association by targeting employees for firing on the basis of their union membership. A federal appeals court ruled that, based on stipulated facts, that was the case, and reversed summary judgment for the defendants, instructing that summary judgment be entered for the plaintiffs on their First Amendment claim and that appropriate equitable relief be granted. Further proceedings were ordered on individual plaintiffs claims. Claims for money damages against the defendants in their individual capacities were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition v. Rowland, #11-3061, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 10970 (2nd Cir.).

Whistleblower Protection

    A former employee of the District of Columbia, fired from his job as an elevator inspector, sued the employer and four supervisors for violation of a District Whistleblower Protection Act. His firing was for allegedly soliciting work for his private business while on duty. A federal appeals court ruled that he had no possible claim against the individuals, as the statute provided no cause of action against individuals at the time of his firing. A subsequent amendment to the law allowing such claims did not apply retroactively. Payne v. District of Columbia Government, #11-7116, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 11478 (D.C. Cir.).

• Contents menu.

• Report non-working links here

     Training: "High-Technology Environment Training (HiTET): Embracing Modern Challenges," by Shawn Matthews, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (June 2013).

Reference:

• Abbreviations of laws, law reports and agencies used in our publications.
• AELE’s list of employment law resources

Report non-working links here

AELE Seminars:

Lethal and Less Lethal Force
Oct. 7-9, 2013 – Las Vegas

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Dec. 16-18, 2013 - Las Vegas

 Search the Case Law Digest