Monthly Law Journal Article: Retaliatory Personnel Action Part One –Statutory Remedies, 2009 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Retaliatory Personnel Action Part Two–Reporting Coworkers, 2009 (10) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Retaliatory Personnel Action Part Three–What constitutes employer retaliation?, 2009 (11) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     A police department employee was first involuntarily transferred to a new job and then terminated shortly thereafter. She claimed that this was motivated by retaliation against her for exercising her First Amendment rights in giving deposition testimony under subpoena in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by a former department employee against the city and an assistant police chief. The testimony she gave was adverse to the interests of the assistant police chief. The assistant police chief was not entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiff spoke on a matter of public concern as a private citizen and there was evidence that retaliation against her for this protected speech motivated her discharge. It was clearly established that a supervisor cannot retaliate against an employee for such testimony. Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace, #11-35343, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 9311 (9th Cir.).
     A city was liable to a former female spokesperson for the police department for a total of $417,955.34, including $167,955.34 in attorneys' fees and costs. She was transferred to patrol duty from her spokesperson position, and then was assigned to a more prestigious job with promises of overtime after pursuing a union grievance. Believing that she is not receiving as much overtime as other employees, she makes copies of their paystubs to pursue a complaint, but was allegedly then threatened by a city attorney with criminal prosecution for doing so if she didn't drop her EEOC complaints The jury awarded her damages on her claims that the city retaliated against her because of her complaints of gender discrimination. The award included amounts for pain, suffering, emotional distress and injury to her reputation. Lore v. City of Syracuse, #09–3772, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 1954, 114 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 466, remanded by 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 4404 (2nd Cir.).
     Editor's note: In the final opinion rendered above by the appeals court, it notes that the plaintiff elected to drop her cross-appeal of the dismissal of her challenge to her removal from the position as departmental spokesman. She had been offered the option of either doing that and accepting the present judgment, or having the judgment vacated and receiving a new trial encompassing both the retaliation claim, on which the current judgment was based, and her gender discrimination claims.
     A Fire and Safety Officer on the night shift at a state facility for delinquent boys failed to show that he was terminated because of his Caucasian race. He did state possibly meritorious claims for violations of his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), however, as well as for retaliation against him for exercising his rights under the FMLA. He intended to visit his mother when his shift ended because he had been informed that she was not likely to survive the night. When his replacement called in sick, his supervisor allegedly ordered him to remain at work under threat of being fired, even though a co-worker voluntarily stated that they would take over. The appeals court reasoned that not allowing the officer to go be with his dying mother may have violated his rights under the FMLA even though his sister was available to care for her. Under current regulations covering leave requests, an employee need not be the only family member available to care for a sick individual to qualify for leave. Roman v. Michigan Department of Human Services, #10-2174, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 3004; 2012 Fed. App. 0046P (6th Cir.).
     A male homosexual city emergency management employee claimed that co-workers "mocked" him. His alleged romantic relationship with a male co-worker ended when the co-worker started an involvement with a co-worker. He then told his supervisor that he wanted to not have to work together with his ex-boyfriend, and that he feared a possible physical attack. He was transferred to a "graveyard" shift, and later also transferred to administrative duties at a cemetery. He sued the city and its mayor, claiming that his transfers and the ridicule of his co-workers amounted to sex discrimination, a hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation in violation of his equal protection rights. He sought damages for violation of his federal civil rights. The supposed mocking was not shown to be significant enough or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, and the transfer, even if not what he desired, had no impact on his rank, duties, or pay. Ayala-Sepulveda v. Municipality of San German, #10–2123, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 947; 114 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 234 (1st Cir.).
      After a lieutenant lost his election bid to replace the incumbent sheriff, during which he accused the sheriff-coroner of corruption, he was placed on administrative leave and then demoted. In a lawsuit by the ex-lieutenant charging unlawful retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights, a federal appeals court rejected the sheriff's defense that the plaintiff had been a policymaker and therefore could be dismissed for politically motivated reasons. "Moreover, dismissals on the basis of political considerations must further a 'vital government end' [absent here] because they infringe upon a constitutional right." The court ruled that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity from liability, however, in light of the plaintiff's concurrent service as chief of police services for a city under a contract between the city and county. Under these circumstances, the sheriff could have mistakenly believed that political loyalty was required for someone with the lieutenant's job responsibilities. Hunt v. County of Orange,  #10-55163, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2815 (9th Cir.).
     After a fire department's diving team was eliminated for budgetary reasons, a boy drowned. An off-duty (and not in uniform) firefighter, who had been a member of the team, was suspended after he spoke at a village council meeting and told them that "A little boy had to die but you guys saved some money" He sued for unlawful retaliation based on his exercise of his First Amendment rights. A federal appeals court rejected the village's defense that the firefighter had "communicated nothing more than 'the quintessential employee beef: management has acted incompetently'." It overturned summary judgment for the village, and ordered further proceedings to determine whether his interest in speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern "outweighed the defendants' interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs." Westmoreland v. Sutherland, #10-3766. 662 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2011).
     A police officer who was terminated twice, and reinstated once, sued the city in federal court, claiming that her terminations were because of her disability of suffering from multiple sclerosis and that she had been subjected to harassment and retaliation on the basis of her disability. These issues, however, had previously been litigated in state court, so she was precluded from relitigating them in a federal lawsuit. The record showed, moreover, that her first termination, occurring years after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, was for associating with a known drug dealer who was the father of her son, and lying to the department about this relationship. She was only reinstated because the department had relied, during the termination, on evidence from illegal wiretaps and because the disciplinary action was untimely. The second termination was based on her being shot in the face at home, with the department concluding she had attempted suicide. Again, there was no evidence of disability discrimination or retaliation. White v. City of Pasadena, #08-57012, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 927 (9th Cir.)
     An award of more than $2 million to a male police officer who claimed that he was fired for filing a sexual harassment claim against a male co-worker was overturned by a California appeals court. He had told an Internal Affairs investigator that the co-worker had asked him for a date, which he turned down, saying that he was not gay. He claimed that the co-worker then made a number of harassing sexually-oriented comments to him. His allegations were later investigated, determined to have been fabricated, and he was fired. It was determined that he would have made his accusations earlier if they were true, and it was believed that he made them as the basis of a defense to possible discipline over an incident in which he went "end of watch" without checking out with the co-worker. The appeals court found that the plaintiff did not present substantial evidence at trial that his termination was motivated by retaliation for filing the sexual harassment complaint. Additionally, the jury instructions did not adequately spell out that retaliatory intent was necessary as an element of the officer's claim. Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, #B226685, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1207, 2012 Cal. App. Lexis 35 (Cal. App.).
     A probationary correctional officer failed to show that she was constructively terminated and compelled to resign in retaliation for her refusal to make false statements to a grand jury, in violation of her First Amendment rights. She had observed a couple arguing outside a home, and had allegedly been pressured by a police detective who was unsatisfied with her statements indicating that what she had observed had not been a battery. He allegedly complained to her employer in an attempt to bully her into changing her story, which she refused to do. She failed to show that the alleged firing was retaliatory, and had no protected interest in staying on the job, given her probationary status. Redd v. Nolan, #10-2680, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 23692 (7th Cir.).
     A city employee had severe attendance difficulties due to health problems. When she was denied a closer parking space at work that she had requested as a reasonable accommodation because of her difficulty walking, she sued the city for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A federal appeals court ruled that she was not an otherwise qualified employee for purposes of the ADA, because her attendance was unpredictable, and regular attendance was an essential function of her job. The record also showed that her absenteeism problem was present long before she was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, her claimed disabling condition. The court also rejected the plaintiff employee's retaliation claim, since she could not show that she suffered any adverse employment action in retaliation for requesting the accommodation of the closer parking space. Colon-Fontanez v. Municipality of San Juan, #10-1026, 660 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2011).
      A deputy sheriff called into a talk radio program and stated that the current sheriff was not a good fit for the job. In response, the sheriff called in and replied that the deputy was a "slacker," and made statements about the deputy's disciplinary record, saying it involved sexual harassment of another employee, when it actually involved violation of a rule against offensive conduct or language. The deputy sued the sheriff for unlawful retaliation against him for exercising his First Amendment rights in criticizing the sheriff. A federal appeals court rejected this claim, because "(w)e cannot afford one party his right to free speech while discounting the rights of the other party." The appeals court also rejected claims that the sheriff, in making the statements about the deputy's alleged disciplinary record, violated Wisconsin laws concerning privacy and open public records. The open records statute did not apply, as there was no actual release of a public record. As for privacy, the court found that there was no genuine public interest in keeping the record of the concluded disciplinary investigation closed to the public.  Hutchins v. Clarke, #10-2661, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 21475  (7th Cir.)
    A fire district chief who imposed discipline on a firefighter had statutory immunity against a retaliation lawsuit claim by the employee. A state statute that removed immunity for political subdivisions in such employment related cases was clear and unambiguous in failing to alter the immunity of fellow employees. A unanimous Ohio Supreme Court held that the fire district chief, therefore, could not be sued in his individual capacity. Zumwalde v. Madeira & Indian Hill Joint Fire District, #2010–0218, 2011 Ohio Lexis 813, 128 Ohio St. 3d 492, 2011 Ohio 1603, 946 N.E.2d 748.
     A jury awarded a total of $10 million in damages to three Caucasian officers who allegedly faced retaliatory actions because they opposed discriminatory treatment of minority officers. The trial court reduced the damage awards to $300,000 per plaintiff. On appeal, the city claimed that hearings held by its internal disciplinary review board, which resulted in the termination of one of the plaintiffs, severed any causal connection between a supervisor's alleged retaliatory animus and the final decision to fire the officer. The appeals court noted that, in Staub v. Proctor Hosp, #09-400, 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court had rejected a "singular influence" test requiring that the plaintiff show that the decisionmaker was no more than a rubber stamp of the nondecisionmaker. The correct test, instead, was that of proximate cause, with the burden on the city to prove that the officer's termination was for reasons unrelated to the supervisor's original allegedly biased action in bringing charges against the officer. In this case, the review board hearing did not absolve the city of liability for the supervisor's retaliatory actions. McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, #09-3567, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17199 (3rd Cir.).
      When a Hispanic police officer was denied a requested transfer to Internal Affairs after repeatedly complaining of racial discrimination, there was sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict finding unlawful retaliation. The jury's award of $90,000 under Title VII and $90,000 under a District of Columbia law, however, was an improper double recovery, since both retaliation claims involved the same facts and were seeking the same relief. The jury rejected the officer's racial discrimination claims. Medina v. District of Columbia, #10-7094, 643 F.3d 323 (D.C. Cir. 2011)
     A probationary officer was entitled to First Amendment protection against retaliatory termination for his refusal to comply with orders to make false statements, retract his earlier truthful report, and make a new report concealing a co-worker's alleged use of excessive force. His claim was not barred by Garcetti v. Ceballos, #04-473, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), or Weintraub v. Board of Education, 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir.) , cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 444 (2010), since he was not just doing his job in disobeying orders from the chief of police and other top administrators. Jackler v. Byrne, #10-0859, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 15265 (2nd Cir.).
    An African-American police officer failed to show that she was dismissed in retaliation for opposing discrimination, as protected under Title VII or New Jersey state law. Her complaints about certain alleged violations of departmental regulations - such as another officer's transfer, officers' smoking on site, and the practice of sending one-officer units to two-officer areas did not involve practices made unlawful under the statutes at issue, and did not constitute protected activity. Her reports to her supervisors about being called a "pain" also did not involve criticism based on her race or gender. Davis v. City of Newark, #10-4365, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4903 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     While there was evidence of "tension" between an African-American police officer and his co-workers when he returned to work after having been suspended and arrested on charges of sexually abusing his daughter, there was no indication that he suffered racial discrimination, a hostile work environment, or retaliation on account of his race. His claim that he was treated "differently" when he returned did not show intentional discrimination. Livingston v. Borough of Edgewood, #10-4455, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 11240 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     A police chief who was fired won his job back through union arbitration, and was subsequently subjected to a variety of restrictions concerning how to do his duties by the borough council. He sued the borough under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, arguing that his collective bargaining grievance constituted a "petition" protected by the provision in the First Amendment concerning the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. He further claimed that the restrictions imposed were unlawful retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights, and that his request for overtime pay was also denied in retaliation for his filing of the lawsuit.. A federal appeals court ruled that the "public concern" test applicable to First Amendment cases brought by public employees does not apply to claims brought under the petition clause. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that a public employee's exercise of rights under either the free speech or petition clauses must involve a matter of public concern to be protected. The petition clause does not create "a right to transform everyday employment disputes into matters for constitutional litigation in the federal courts." The appeals court decision upholding jury awards of damages for the police chief was therefore vacated. Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, #09-1476, 2011 U.S. Lexis 4564.
     New York's highest court upholds a jury award for two NYPD officers who were subjected to retaliation because they had opposed discrimination against another department member, due to his perceived sexual orientation. There was sufficient evidence in the record to support the verdicts of $579,728 and $491,706, plus attorneys' fees. Albunio v. City of New York, #43, 2011 NY Slip Op 2480, 2011 N.Y. Lexis 498.
     Federal court reduces the damage awarded a woman police who complained about male employees watching pornography, and management responded by listening to her recorded conversation. "It was unreasonable for the jury to award plaintiff nearly half of a million dollars because plaintiff suffered alleged and unsubstantiated 'damages' due to defendants eavesdropping on one telephone conversation when the record established that plaintiff knew that her telephone conversations were being recorded. ... Based upon the record, a new trial will be held on the issue of compensatory damages unless plaintiff accepts an award of compensatory damages of $50,000.00." Dotson v. City of Syracuse, #5:04-CV-1388, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20374 (N.D.N.Y.).
    Supreme Court extends Title VII's anti-retaliation protection to third parties. It "must be construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct... A reasonable worker obviously might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired." Thompson v. North American Stainless, #09-291, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 913.
     Dismissal of a retaliation suit brought by state troopers is affirmed by the Second Circuit. "In sum, Plaintiffs do not allege having suffered any negative consequences ... beyond vague and unspecific descriptions of their own perceptions of their work." Nixon v. Blumenthal, #3:08-cv-1933, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 22408 (D. Conn.); affirmed, #10-1084-cv, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 25693 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
     Federal Merit Board orders the reinstatement of, and back pay for, a former U.S. Park Police chief who was fired after speaking out against manpower shortages, resulting in increased crime and drug activity in Washington area parks. Chambers v. Dept. of the Interior, DC-1221-04-0616-M-2, 2011 MSPB 7.
     California's fair employment law does not provide for a claim of retaliation against a supervisor. Grobeson v. City of Los Angeles, #B207551, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 2040.
     California's fair employment law does not provide for a claim of retaliation against a supervisor. Grobeson v. City of Los Angeles, #B207551, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 2040
     Third Circuit rejects a retaliation suit against a city police officer who reported possible misconduct to state officials. She was transferred to the property room, without any loss of pay. "Plaintiff's transfer and the alleged comments and behavior directed towards her do not amount to punitive conduct that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising her free speech rights, and ... the lack of adverse employment action was fatal to [her] claims. Revell v. City of Jersey City, #09-4207, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19407 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Jury awards a former Los Angeles police officer nearly $4 million in his case against the LAPD, finding that the officer was fired in retaliation for testifying against the department in a labor dispute. Romney v. Bratton, #BC 411532 (L.A. Co. Super. 11-02-2010); companion case, Romney v. City of L.A., #2:09-cv-0304 (C.D. Cal.).
     Fourth Circuit resurrects a retaliation suit filed by two former corrections officers. A lieutenant had filed an EEO discrimination complaint, which was backed by the other two officers. The lieutenant was fired for supervision failures and the two officers were fired for falsified inmate counts. The lieutenant was reinstated and settled his claims against the county. Although the termination of the two officers was set aside, they were not barred from pursuing retaliation claims against their superiors in their personal capacities. Brooks v. Arthur, #09-1551, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23840 (4th Cir.).
     Eighth Circuit rejects a Title VII retaliation and First Amendment action brought by an Omaha police auditor who fired after she had published a report that was critical of Omaha police practices. She was not speaking as a citizen, and Title VII does not prohibit retaliation for criticizing discriminatory police tactics. Bonn v. City of Omaha, #09-3332, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21486 (8th Cir.).
     Third Circuit rejects a retaliation suit brought by a state trooper who claimed that as a result of his refusal to participate in a quota system, he was subjected to adverse employment conditions. Supervisory ride-a-longs, denial of transfer requests and overtime, remedial training, or poor performance evaluations are not constitutional deprivations. Aubrecht v. Pa. State Police, #09-2226, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 16391 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     After a Dallas police officer complained of sexual harassment and retaliation, she was removed from FTO duties, other coworkers allegedly began "clicking" over her radio calls, refused to partner with her, and she was denied overtime assignments. The Fifth Circuit overturned a summary judgment for the city; "a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the City retaliated against [her] for filing a Title VII complaint by removing her from FTO duties." Magiera v. City of Dallas, #09-10826, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 16802 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     Appellate panel rejects retaliation and hostile workplace claims brought by a consistently under-performing police officer. Thompson v. City of Monrovia, #B216252, 186 Cal. App. 4th 860, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 1142.
     A change in an employee’s parking space location or a relocation to an office without a window are petty annoyances and do not constitute an adverse personnel action for the purpose of proving a hostile workplace claim. Fercello v. Co. of Ramsey, #09-2587, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 15619, 612 F.3d 1069, 109 FEP Cases (BNA) 1516 (8th Cir.).
     Being listed as a witness in an appeal filed by a coworker did not trigger anti-retaliation provisions. Thampi v. Manatee County, #09-16139, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13580 (11th Cir.).
     First Circuit declines to overturn the 15-day suspension given a fire chief, who made public statements about inadequate funding and staffing. Although he spoke on a matter of public concern, he was in uniform and on duty at the time. He had media attention because of his position and was not speaking as a citizen. Foley v. Town of Randolph, #09-1558, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 5020 (1st Cir.).
     Appellate panel reject claims raised by the estate of a N.J. state trooper who committed suicide, alleging coworker harassment because of his objections to a perceived practice of profiling motorists. "... the record fails to provide a basis for a reasonable inference that any of the actions that [the defendants] took were in retaliation against [the deceased] for complaining about racial profiling." The officer's "experience in the New Jersey State Police was undoubtedly negative, and his story is tragic. Yet we cannot find that he has a right to relief unless he can establish that his various statutory causes of action can be sustained according to their requirements or establish that the District Court abused its discretion in denying him leave to amend his complaint. He has not done so..." Estate of Oliva v. Dept. of Law & Pub. Safety, #09-2082, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 9142, 109 FEP Cases (BNA) 367 (3rd Cir.).
     Divided federal appeals panel rejects the retaliation claims raised by two police officers after they cooperated with an investigation into alleged police misconduct. Chamberlin v. Town of Stoughton, #08-1289, 601 F.3d 25, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6783 (1st Cir.).
     Seventh Circuit rejects a failure to promote claim raised by a federal employee. Although he had testified on behalf of two other employees there was no proof that action was a factor in the employment decision. Poer v. Astrue, #09-3473, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 10800 (7th Cir.).
     A police sergeant received a negative evaluation after reporting a supervisor for improper conduct, and then filed suit. A federal court has rejected his retaliation claim, because he was not speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern, but as an employee pursuing a work-related grievance against a coworker with whom he had a contentious relationship. O'Brien v. Robbins, #08-CV-11672, 679 F.Supp.2d 212, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3512 (D. Mass.).
     Citing Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 and Robinson v. York, 566 F.3d 817, 822 (9th Cir. 2009) a Ninth Circuit panel noted that in retaliation lawsuits, the issues are: (1) whether the employee spoke on a matter of public concern; (2) whether the employee spoke as a private citizen or as a public employee; (3) whether the employee’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action; (4) whether the agency had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from other members of the general public; and (5) whether the agency would have taken the adverse employment action absent the protected speech. The District Court properly dismissed the complaint because the officers were not acting as citizens. “Testifying before a grand jury charged with investigating corruption is one part of an officer’s job. If a police officer were subpoenaed to testify, he or she would have two choices. One choice would be to testify before the grand jury. In that event, the officer could lawfully be fired in retaliation for his or her testimony. The other choice would be to refuse to testify. In that event, the officer would face contempt (and possibly other adverse consequences) for failing to comply with a subpoena.” Huppert v. City of Pittsburg, #06-17362, 574 F.3d 696, 29 IER Cases (BNA) 911 (9th Cir.).
     Seventh Circuit rejects a retaliation claim brought by a state police officer who complained of lead contamination in the firing range where he was stationed. The court found that his complaints, sent up the chain of command, were not protected by the First Amendment. His internal grievance was on a matter of private interest and did not raise a matter of public concern. Bivens v. Trent, #08-2256, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 215 (7th Cir.). “We are not suggesting that Garcetti applies every time a police officer has conversations with a prosecutor. What constitutes official duties will necessarily vary with the circumstances including the rank of the officer, his areas of responsibility and the nature of the conversations ...” Chamberlin v. Town of Stoughton, #08-1289, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6783 (1st Cir.).
     Third Circuit rejects a retaliation claim of a civilian state police employee who was not rehired because of alleged sick leave abuse. Her First Amendment claim failed because she her speech was not a matter of public concern. Conard v. Penn. State Police, #09-1837, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 532 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Islamic, Jamaican-born FBI agent wins $300,000 in his suit alleging retaliation after he had complained about discrimination. Rattigan v. Holder, #1:04-cv-02009, PACER Doc. 110; prior decisions at 636 F.Supp.2d 89 and 604 F.Supp.2d 33 (D.D.C. 2009).
     Washington state appellate panel sustains the termination of a police officer for violating a Last Chance Agreement. There was no proof that the city had retaliated against the officer for instigating a labor complaint with the PERC. Yakima Police Patrolmen's Assn. and City of Yakima, #37865-5-II, 153 Wn. App. 541, 2009 Wash. App. Lexis 3087, 187 LRRM (BNA) 2880.
     A State Police officer, who discovered that he had elevated levels of lead in his blood due to contamination of the indoor firing range where he was assigned, filed a grievance. His complaint forced management to close the range for nearly nine months, resulting in unfavorable publicity. A subsequent retaliation suit, filed against his superiors, was unsuccessful. Under the 2006 Garcetti decision, his grievance was not protected by the First Amendment because it "was clearly related to and part of his official duties, and … he was not speaking as a private citizen." Bivens v. Trent, # 08-2256, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 215 (7th Cir.).
     A divided Ninth Circuit panel rejects a Sec. 1983 speech-related retaliation claim filed by two police officers. Citing the 2006 Garcetti decision, "It is clear that in California a police officer's official duties include investigating corruption ..." The panel specifically declined to follow a Third Circuit decision, Reilly v. Atlantic City, #06-2591, 532 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2008). Huppert v. City of Pittsburg, #06-17362, 574 F.3d 696, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15970, 29 IER Cases (BNA) 91 (9th Cir.).
     Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 holding, rejects a suit filed by two police detectives who claimed retaliation after they filed a grievance complaining about a lieutenant's attitude and demeanor. Reporting poor interpersonal relationships among coworkers is not a matter of public concern. Desrochers v. San Bernardino, #07-56773, 572 F.3d 703, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15400, 29 IER Cases (BNA) 645 (9th Cir.).
    Chicago Police management transferred or detailed a sergeant, who had filed a retaliation lawsuit in 2002, ten times among seven different units. Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit found that she failed to rebut management's assertion that she was borderline insubordinate, had a confrontational attitude, and suffered from an inability to conduct street operations that jeopardized the safety of an undercover officer. The three-judge panel affirmed the city's motion for summary judgment. She could not rely on her competency in other areas of her job to bolster her claim of repetitious retaliation. O'Neal v. City of Chicago, #09-1716, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 25177 (7th Cir.).
     Federal labor board concludes that a private prison operator did not violate federal labor relations laws when it discharged a nurse, who had engaged in the protected concerted activity of pursuing discrimination grievances, because she had engaged in antagonistic behavior that provoked two registered nurses to resign. Corrections Corp. of America and Nelson, #26-CA-23180, 354 NLRB No. 105, 2009 NLRB Lexis 359 (NLRB 2009).
     Illinois appellate court affirms a verdict of $3,082,350 in damages, including $2.8 million in punitive damages, plus $1.18 million in attorney fees, for a former private sector employee fired six days after stating that she would be supportive of a co-worker’s racial and sexual harassment action. Blount v. Stroud, # 1-06-2428, 2009 Ill. App. Lexis 980 (1st Dist.).
     Ninth Circuit concludes that the anti-retaliation provisions of Rehabilitation Act and the ADA grant standing to non-disabled employees who are retaliated against for attempting to protect the rights of disabled individuals. Barker v. Riverside County, #07-56313, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23343 (9th Cir.).
     Eighth Circuit rejects a retaliation claim brought by a woman corrections officer who complained that a captain had rubbed her arm and grabbed her breast on one occasion and that she had been treated unfairly by coworkers. The allegations were insufficient to support a hostile work environment claim, where the captain was disciplined and she has not shown severe or pervasive harassment. Petty slights and minor annoyances in the workplace, as well as personality conflicts and snubs by co-workers, are not actionable. Sutherland v. Missouri Dept. of Corr., #08-3000, 107 FEP Cases (BNA) 269, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 20056 (8th Cir.).
       Seventh Circuit rejects a First Amendment claim brought by two jail guards who quit after coworkers threatened to kill them for reporting excessive force on inmates. “The purported code of silence is a ban on filing complaints about guard-on-inmate violence. Such a policy might be foolish; it might expose the County to other lawsuits; but it does not offend the first amendment, because what one guard says about another through the grievance system is part of the job, and the employer can discipline a guard for poor performance of work related tasks.” Fairley v. Andrews, #07-3343, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18720 (7th Cir.).
     Seventh Circuit affirms the dismissal of a suit, challenging the disciplinary transfer of a deputy who wrote a humiliating public comment about the sheriff. While the deputy spoke as a citizen, the content of the message was not a matter of public concern. Milwaukee Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. Clarke, #08-3298, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16082 (7th Cir.).
     $10 million awarded to three former Philadelphia police officers for retaliation after they opposed discrimination against African American officers. A back pay award of $208,781 was added for one of the officers. McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, #98-CV-05835, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 57955 (E.D. Pa.).
     Federal appeals court reinstates a wrongful discharge suit brought by a city employee who reported a ghost payroll. Valentino v. Vil. of So. Chicago Heights, #06-3882, #2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16817 (7th Cir.).
     Joining the 3rd, 5th, and 8th Circuits, a divided en banc panel of the 6th Circuit concludes that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does NOT create a cause of action for third-party retaliation for persons who have not personally engaged in protected activity. The plaintiff was fired because his fiancée had filed a gender bias complaint with the EEOC. "The intended beneficiaries of the anti-retaliation provision of § 2000e-3(a) are obviously the persons retaliated against, not persons who are incidentally hurt by the retaliation." Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, #07-5040, 567 F.3d 804, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12100, 2009 FED App. 0202P, 106 FEP Cases (BNA) 639 (En banc 6th Cir.), reversing 520 F.3d 644.
     In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit affirms a judgment for a white Cleveland police officer who sued the city and various officials for discriminating and retaliating against him after he shot an adolescent black driver of a stolen vehicle. There was evidence that white officers who shot blacks were treated harshly because of the "high profile" nature of the incident. However, an $800,000 jury award included more than $700,000 for emotional distress - which the panel thought was excessive. Lentz v. City of Cleveland, #07-4385, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12500, 106 FEP Cases (BNA) 753 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     In a private sector case, an Illinois appellate panel upholds a verdict of $2.8 million for a woman who was wrongfully discharged because she refused to perjure herself in a §1981 lawsuit. The court also awarded back pay, $25,000 for emotional distress and $1.2 million in attorneys’ fees. Blount v. Stroud, #1-06-2428, 2009 Ill. App. Lexis 553 (3rd Dist.). Note: The Supreme Court has held that §1981 encompasses retaliation claims filed by individuals who have tried to help others that have suffered racial discrimination. CBOCS West v. Humphries, 128 S.Ct. 1951 (2008).
     Although the plaintiff had filed a lawsuit alleging race discrimination, there was no evidence that he was retaliated against when others were selected for promotion. There were legitimate reasons for recommending one candidate over others, and to promote the applicant with the highest score. Stephens v. Erickson, #08-1416, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 14117 (7th Cir.).
    Illinois village settles a federal retaliation lawsuit with a fire captain for $80,000, inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs, along with his promotion to shift commander. He had claimed the Village used pension funds for various political purposes. Iovinelli v. Pritchett, #06-C-6404 (7th Cir.); settlement document; prior decision at 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52617.
    Federal appellate panel declines to overturn a jury verdict for retaliation. The award was for a former sheriff’s employee who was fired after she exercised her Miranda rights during an internal investigation. Also, the defendants raised a defense of immunity too late to be effective. Hendricks v. Office of the Clermont Co. Sheriff, #06-4431,2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9086 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     Reversing the trial court, the Ninth Circuit reinstates a failure to promote action filed by a police officer who claimed that he suffered retaliation because he had filed reports about misconduct and had testified in a class action suit alleging discrimination by his department. Robinson v. York, #07-56312, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8844 (9th Cir.).
     Court rejects a former correctional officer’s claim that she was subjected to gender discrimination and retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights. She failed to allege specific facts revealing an alleged understanding between the union and prison officials to deprive her of her First Amendment rights. Management believed that she was passing information to the attorney of an inmate who had died in the institution. Slater v. Susquehanna County, #3:07-CV-2304, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 27188 (M.D. Pa.).
     In a 3-to-1 decision, a N.Y. appellate court sustains an arbitration award upholding the termination of a corrections officer for insubordination. She had repeatedly ignored a sergeant’s directive to stop interrupting another employee. A defense that the charges were levied in retaliation for reporting a coworker for assaulting an inmate was rejected. Kowaleski and N.Y.S. Dept. Corr. Srvs., 505383, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 2485 (3rd Dept.).
     Appellate court rejects a claim by a state trooper, who was fired for misconduct, that his termination was in retaliation for public criticism of the agency; several years had elapsed between the two events. Zeglen v. Pappert, #08-2096, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5987 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
    Supreme Court reinstates a civil rights suit filed by a public employee who claimed that she was fired after reporting sexual harassment by a superior. The ex-employee did not initiate a harassment complaint; the allegations were made during an internal investigation where she responded to questions. The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during an employer’s internal investigation. Crawford v. Met. Govt. of Nashville, #06-1595, 2009 U.S. Lexis 870.
Arbitrator finds that management retaliated against a police union steward by denying a request for light-duty assignment, where other employees had been given such assignments, and the chief ordered officer to fire from kneeling position during a qualification test after grievant had returned from knee injury, even though the grievant "had been instructed at academy not to include this dangerous maneuver as part of qualification course." Dept. of Veterans Affairs and AFGE L-1539, FMCS Case #08/57425, 125 LA (BNA) 1528 (Neigh, 2008).
     Federal appeals panel declines to dismiss a suit brought by a sergeant who claimed that management denied him a promotion because he testified against his agency and reported multiple instances of misconduct. Whether the agency treated misconduct complaint seriously was a matter of public concern. Robinson v. Co. of Los Angeles, #07-56312, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 458 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
     Eighth Circuit declines to dismiss a retaliation action brought by five county employees that they were reassigned or transferred to less desirable jobs soon after they complained of race discrimination. Although management claimed that the plaintiffs were reassigned to adjust intra-agency workloads, the fact is that workload variations had never resulted in their reassignments in prior years. Betton v. St. Louis County, #07-1634, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 957 (Unpub. 8th Cir.).
     Los Angeles jury awards $3.6 million to a male officer who claimed that he was demoted and suffered retaliation after supporting a female officer's harassment charges. Bender v. City of Los Angeles, Super. Ct. #BC361139; L. A. Times, Nov. 13, 2008. The woman has her own lawsuit pending; Fuller v. City of Los Angeles, Super. Ct. #BC346464.
     Although it was five years between the filing of an EEO complaint against the Bureau of Prisons and the denial of a promotion, the government was not entitled to dismissal of the action. The BoP paid $10,000 from the agency's budget to settle the plaintiff's EEO complaint, and his application for the position sought was denied five times. Mack v. Mukasey, #06-cv-00350, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 76111, 104 FEP Cases (BNA) 799 (D. Colo.).
     In a case involving a DHS employee who brought a retaliation lawsuit, "lower performance ratings are not actionable unless they are accompanied by tangible job consequences." Even if the lower rating prevented the plaintiff from receiving a merit bonus, it would not be enough to constitute a materially adverse action. Lapka v. Chertoff, #06-4099, 517 F.3d 974, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4391, 102 FEP Cases (BNA) 1253 (7th Cir. 2008).
     Fifth Circuit rejects claims raised by a former prison nurse. Allegations of unfriendly behavior, being reprimanded in front of coworkers, unpleasant work meetings, and unfair treatment do not constitute adverse employment actions. King v. Louisiana Dept. of P.S. & C., #07-31069, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20294 (5th Cir.).
     Federal court dismisses a §1983 suit by a former state trooper who claimed that a superior violated his right to equal protection by treating him differently because of personal malice. His claim was not based on membership in a particular group, and "class of one" equal protection claims are invalid in the public employment context. Stas v. Lynch, #3:07-CV-0268, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 70783 (D. Conn.).
     Appellate panel rejects a suit filed by an at-will probation officer who was fired after she wrote a letter to a judge that was critical of her supervisor. The letter was a personal grievance, not a matter of public concern. Miller v. Clinton County, #07-2105, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20682 (3rd Cir.).
    Seventh Circuit rejects an action brought by a jailer who claimed that she was fired in retaliation for filing a sexual harassment complaint. She unlawfully tape-recorded her meeting with superiors. "Title VII does not grant employees license to engage in dubious self-help activities to obtain evidence." Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, #07-1903, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18330 (7th Cir.).
     Illinois is one of 12 states that require the consent of all parties to a recorded conversation; the others are: California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Appellate panel rejects a retaliation lawsuit brought by a terminated park ranger. He had threatened, intimidated and abused coworkers and made a false complaint. Richey v. City of Independence, #07-2109, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18795 (8th Cir.).
     Arbitrator overturns an involuntary transfer that occurred immediately after the grievant indicated that he was going to file a grievance challenging a schedule change. City of Reno and Reno Police Employees, 125 LA (BNA) 158 (Staudohar, 2008).
     California Highway Patrol to pay $995,000 to settle a 14-count lawsuit brought by a former command-level officer who claimed retaliation because he sought promotion to commissioner. Acevedo v. Calif. Highway Patrol, #06AS03307 (Sacramento Super.)
     Seventh Circuit overturns a judgment for $210,000 in compensatory and $150,000 in punitive damages, awarded to a State Police lieutenant that was laterally transferred because of his criticism of a case and the filing of an internal complaint. His statements and reports were made pursuant to his official duties, and not as a citizen. Callahan v. Fermon, #05-4313, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10800 (7th Cir.).
     California appeals court affirms a verdict for a former police officer that alleged sex discrimination and retaliation. The jury awarded $530,012 in economic and $372,503 in non-economic damages on her claim for discrimination, plus $59,150 in economic and $287,500 in non-economic damages on her claim for retaliation. Zanone v. City of Whittier, #B189567, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 597 (2nd Dist.).
     To prevail in a retaliation action a party must show that the decision not to promote her was influenced by a retaliatory animus of her superior. Metzger v. Illinois State Police, #06-3251, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5679 (7th Cir.).
     In a retaliation and gender bias lawsuit against a U.S. Marshal, the relevant question was whether the Marshal retaliated against the deputy for filing a complaint, not whether he was motivated by gender bias at the time. DeCaire v. Mukasey, #07-1539, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5174 (1st Cir.).
     California appellate panel reinstates a jury verdict for retaliation won by a social worker that was assigned to a prison by a temp. agency. She was a special DoC employee under Gov. Code § 12940(j) and had standing to assert a discrimination claim, even though she was not an official employee of the state for civil service purposes. Bradley v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections, #F049541, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 78 (5th Dist.).
     Federal court in Florida upholds a damages claim for corrections officer who alleged that she was fired in retaliation for making disabilities discrimination complaints. Rumler v. Fla. Dept. of Corrections, #2:06-cv-522, Pacer Doc. #59 (M.D. Fla.).
     Eighth Circuit sustains a five-day disciplinary suspension of a corrections officer that failed to report the use of force against an inmate, and rejects the officer's claim of unlawful retaliation. Barker v. Mo. Dept. of Corrections, #07-1422, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1328 (8th Cir.).
     Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of a retaliation suit filed by a sheriff's deputy that was fired for sexual harassment. Court also sustains an award of attorney's fees to the county against the ex-deputy, who alleged disability and national origin discrimination. Loera v. Co. of Imperial, #06-55438, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27781 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
     Federal appeals court rejects claims brought by correctional officers that management denied them due process and equal protection of the laws by "blacklisting" employees who had filed administrative appeals of personnel actions, resulting in them not being considered for promotions and other opportunities. The employees lacked a protected property interest in being considered for employment opportunities and they retained their rank and salaries. Teigen v. Renfrow, #06-1283, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29854 (10th Cir.).
     Supreme Court declines to review a Seventh Circuit ruling that vacated a $210,000 verdict in favor of a corrections officer. She had alleged retaliatory action after she complained that she was stopped from searching a vehicle that two senior prison officials used to leave the facility. Her complaint about prison security was not protected under the First Amendment because of the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (2006). Spiegla v. Hull, #05-3722, 481 F.3d 961, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7396, 25 IER Cases (BNA) 1508 (7th Cir.); cert. den. #07-273, 2007 U.S. Lexis 11650.
     State investigator, who won a $1.5 million verdict for being denied a promotion in retaliation for reporting misconduct, may sue again for denial of a promotion in retaliation for having filed the first lawsuit. Dillon v. Morano, #06-2501-CV, 497 F.3d 247, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19453 (2nd Cir.).
     Eighth Circuit rejects retaliation fear claims raised by two women police dispatchers because they were not credible and did not excuse a yearlong delay in reporting a superior's sexual harassment. The District Court properly dismissed their hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation claims. Weger v. City of Ladue, #06-1970, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21909 (8th Cir.).
     Federal court refuses to dismiss wrongful discharges action filed by three former police employees that had cooperated in a public corruption investigation. Cheek v. City of Edwardsville, #06-2210, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66150 (D. Kan.)
     In a retaliation lawsuit, a New York court declines to set aside jury verdicts of $491,706, $479,473 and $507,198 awarded to a former sergeant, lieutenant and captain. The sergeant had filed a discrimination complaint; the two superior officers opposed discriminatory acts against the him. They complained of retaliation and constructive discharge. Sorrenti v. City of New York, #126981/02, 2007 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 6363 (N.Y. Co. Sup.).
     LAPD officers obtain a consent decree against a woman that chronically abused the agency's IA complaints process. Jones v. Andrade, #BC355541 (Los Ang. Super. 2007).
     It was a question of fact as to whether a state trooper's reporting of potentially unlawful conduct by a superior was protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (2006) does not compel summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiff's retaliation claim. Paola v. Spada, #03cv1628, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 58154 (D.Conn.), on remand from 204 Fed. Appx. 946, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28219 (2d Cir.).
     In a civil action brought by former state troopers and firing range instructors, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed as to their First Amendment retaliation claims. The plaintiffs were speaking as employees, not as citizens, when they alleged hazardous conditions, corruption, misconduct, and mismanagement when they spoke with a State Auditor. Foraker v. Chaffinch, #06-4086, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20739 (3rd Cir.).
     Sixth Circuit rejects a First Amendment retaliation action brought by a terminated park ranger. Statements she made to a consultant that management hired to interview employees were not made as a citizen, but as an employee. Weisbarth v. Geauga Park Dist., #06-4189, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20261, 2007 FED App. 0337P (6th Cir.).
     Federal court dismisses a suit filed by a demoted firefighter because the illegality of the chief's retaliatory action would not necessarily have been clear to a reasonable government official at the time. The firefighter spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern when he revealed that the chief had a Confederate flag tattoo in violation of the department's policy. Hartwell v. City of Montgomery, #2:06cv518, 487 F.Supp.2d 1313, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 34271 (M.D. Ala.).
     Seventh Circuit affirms the dismissal of a wrongful discharge suit, where the worker claimed that the employer terminated him for filing a workers' compensation claim. In fact, the worker was fired because he failed to provide management with periodic medical status reports as required under the collective bargaining agreement. McCoy v. Maytag Corp., #06-2417, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18058 (7th Cir.).
     LAFD captain awarded $3.75 million in retaliation lawsuit, including $2.96 million for pain and suffering, after he refused to lower physical fitness standards for women recruits. He alleged that he suffered heart problems after management tried to punish him and he was denied assignments. Lima v. City of Los Angeles, #BC353261; verdict rptd. Nat. L. J. 15 (6-18-2007) and L.A. Times (6-9-2007).
     Federal court refuses to dismiss a retaliation lawsuit brought by an Islamic, Jamaican born, African-American FBI agent who, after his conversion to Islam, was subjected to a file review, an on-site review, and a loyalty investigation. A "mere investigation" may constitute a material, adverse personnel action. Rattigan v. Gonzales, #04-2009, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39227, 100 FEP Cases (BNA) 1680 (D.D.C.).
     Although a temporary transfer and compulsory fitness-for-duty examinations arguably constituted adverse employment actions, a Bureau of Prisons employee failed to prove a connection to an earlier filing of an EEOC complaint. Management established legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for her transfer and the FFD exam, based on her outbursts and statements regarding a brain tumor. The warden legitimately was concerned that she could no longer perform her job duties. Murry v. Attorney General, #06-15764, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11473 (Unpub. 11th Cir. 2007).
     Male NYPD sergeant wins $300,000 after he had his firearms removed from his home and was transferred to manage a filthy storage room in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment by a woman lieutenant. Marchisotto v. City of New York, #05Civ.2699, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 27046, 100 FEP Cases (BNA) 1114 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
     Seventh Circuit rejects a retaliation claim in a First Amendment action, where a gangs task force police officer alleged that he was denied promotions because he complained to superiors that some officers might be tipping off suspects. His speech was not made outside of his capacity as an investigator and a task force member, so he was not speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, # 05-4143, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12204 (7th Cir.).
     Ninth Circuit concludes that the appellant failed to show that management's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for his termination were pretextual. The legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the appellant's termination included insubordination, use of profanity, falsification of time sheets, improperly charging tires to the state, an attempted cover up, and breaching confidentiality with a witness in the employer's investigation of his actions. Willie v. Nevada Dept. Public Safety, #05-15903, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12064 (9th Cir.).
     "The EAP is a counseling program that helps employees manage job-related stress, solve personal problems, and deal with addictive or suicidal behaviors. Referral to the Philadelphia Police Department's EAP is a non-punitive action. EAP use by the officers is voluntary and does not appear on their employment record. Because plaintiff does not even allege otherwise, she cannot make out a prima facie case on this claim." Webb v. City of Philadelphia, #05-5238, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42727 (E.D. Pa.).
     Federal court rejects a retaliation lawsuit filed by a police civilian worker that claimed superiors mistreated her after she reported seeing a lieutenant and a subordinate officer engaging in sex while in uniform. "Her statements depict a single event in the workplace, are devoid of any social commentary, and do not suggest an endemic problem that might impact the public or warrant its concern." Moreover, "no rational trier of fact could conclude [that she] was retaliated against for reporting an act of sexual harassment." De Los Santos v. City of N.Y., #02-Civ-8453, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2512 (S.D.N.Y.).
     Federal appeals panel finds that there were valid reasons to terminate an officer's employment. Even if management was retaliating against him because of his participation in a sexual harassment investigation, he failed to show that the city's reasons for discharging him were pretextual. The city would have discharged the employee even if the investigation was not a factor. Crawford v. City of Fairburn, #06-13073, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7245 (11th Cir.).
     Federal jury awards $505,000 [reduced to $300,000] for emotional distress and loss of reputation and $60,000 for lost wages to a former FBI agent who allegedly was retaliated against for filing a sex discrimination complaint. Turner v. Gonzalez, #01-CV-1407, 45 (2194) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 220 (D. Minn. 2007); prior ruling at 421 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2005).
     Congress did not include an anti-retaliation provision in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S. Code §633a(15), or intend to protect workers from retaliation for bringing an ADEA complaint. "We presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says." Gomez-Perez v. Potter, #06-1614, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2943 (1st Cir.).
     Although the appellant deputy sheriff engaged in protected activity by filing discrimination complaints and internal grievances for more than 20 years, management passed her over for promotion because she had scored the lowest on the sergeant's exam, and there was no proof the exam was discriminatory. Gary v. Hales, #06-12545, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7 (Unpub. 11th Cir.). [N/R]
     Although the appellant alleged that management terminated him in retaliation for testifying against fellow corrections officers about the mistreatment of inmates, the county offered proof that he was fired for abandoning his job. Espinosa v. Co. of Union, #05-4278, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 391 (3rd Cir. 2007). [N/R]
     Standing: In a retaliation claim, the fact that a friend of the employee filed a discrimination complaint did not mean that the employee had engaged in a protected activity, unless the employee actually participated in that charge. Ramirez v. Gonzales, #06-40751, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2041 (5th Cir. 2007). [N/R]
     Relocating an employee's desk in the police station after she complained of sexual harassment was not an adverse employment action that would support a retaliation claim. McCullough v. Kirkum, #06-30481, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31335 (5th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     The onset of the appellant's disability preceded the date of his termination only because management investigated the incident. He was fired because he violated safety instructions, not because he was injured. Gross v. Indus. Cmsn of Ohio, #2005-1689, 2006 Ohio Lexis 3551 (Ohio 2006). [N/R]
     Appellate court noted that although the plaintiff was fired from her job as a jailer on the day after she gave a deposition in her Title VII lawsuit, there were two nondiscriminatory reasons for firing her: a prisoner suicide occurred on her watch, and her apparent dishonesty in the death investigation. McGowan v. City of Eufala, # 04-7083, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31277 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Federal court allows a police officer to take to trial a claim that he was decommissioned after filing and settling an EEO complaint against his city. Scales v. Metrop. Govt. of Nashville & Davidson Co., #3:05-0553, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 51282, 98 FEP Cases (BNA) 1114 (M.D. Tenn. 2006). {N/R}
     Former Homeland Security officer wins $220,000 in back pay, $780,000 in front pay, and $1.5 million for mental anguish after he was transferred and later terminated in retaliation for filing a disability and race discrimination lawsuit. Hudson v. Chertoff, #05-cv-60985, 44 (2182) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1220 (S.D. Fla. 2006); prior ruling at 2006 U.S. Dist 69044. {N/R}
     Woman Illinois State Police sergeant, who alleged that she was sexually harassed by her supervisor and then received negative performance ratings and inferior work assignments after she complained, wins a jury verdict of $146,000. Storey v. Ill. State Police, #05CV-4011, verdict (S.D. Ill. 2006); prior rulings at 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8127 and 57970. {N/R}
     Federal appeals court reinstates an ex-FBI employee's claims for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Preventing an employee from receiving a promotion constitutes an adverse employment action. Velikonja v. Gonzales, #05-5030, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25675 (D.C. Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Federal court dismisses a suit by a nurse who lost her job after prison authorities denied her entry privileges for breaking a rule. Cunningham v. New Jersey, #03-4970, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68789 (D.N.J. 2006). [2006 FP Dec]
     Firefighter who informed the chief that he and coworkers were having sex in the firehouse loses a suit claiming that fellow employees targeted him for harassment. He signed a release of all claims against the city to keep his job. Littrell v. City of Kansas City, #06-1223, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 21666, 98 LRRM (BNA) 1507 (8th Cir. 2006). [2006 FP Nov]
     Federal jury awards a state police investigator $146,000 in damages after finding that superiors denied a promotion and retaliated against her after she complained of being sexually harassed by a superior officer. Storey v. Ill. State Police, #05-cv-4011 (S.D. Ill. 2006); interim decisions at 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 57970 and 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8127. {N/R}
     Former police commander wins $3.7 million in his whistleblower retaliation lawsuit brought against the chief and mayor -- including $2 million in punitive damages. Hare v. Zitek, #1:02-cv-03973, Pacer Docs 186 & 187 (N.D. Ill. 2006). [2006 FP Nov].
     Eleventh Circuit finds that a captain failed to prove his demotion to lieutenant was in retaliation for FMLA activity. A three-month interval between his FMLA complaints and the demotion is not evidence of causal link between the events, and there was evidence that the sheriff considered demoting him before he made the complaints. Drago v. Jenne, #05-11276, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16094, 11 WH Cases2d (BNA) 980, 98 FEP Cases (BNA) 555 (11th Cir.). {N/R}
     Appellate panel reinstates an action brought by a demoted highway patrol officer claiming that his First Amendment rights were violated by retaliating against him for opposing proposed changes in patrol policy. Hughes v. Stottlemyre, #05-2774, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 18063 (8th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Seventh Circuit affirms the dismissal of a "blacklisting" retaliation lawsuit. The plaintiff failed to prove that city officials provided false information about his work as a city engineer. Tomanovich v. City of Indianapolis, #05-1653, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 20247 (7th Cir. 2006), affirming 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14885. {N/R}
     Supreme Court eases test of what constitutes legal retaliation, but emphasizes that each case must be viewed independently. Burlington No. & Santa Fe Rwy. v. White, #05-259, 2006 U.S. Lexis 4895 (2006). [2006 FP Sep]
     Los Angeles agrees to pay an officer $225,000 to settle his federal lawsuit. After he expressed concerns that racial profiling data entered by other officers was being fabricated, his superiors allegedly pursued unfounded complaints against him, raided his home for weapons, and reassigned him to a distant duty station. Dickenson v. City of Los Angeles, #2:04-cv-07214 (C.D. Cal. 2006); L.A. City Council Special Mtg. 6/7/2006 (Closed Session), Council Item #06-1163. {N/R}
     City was entitled to dismissal of a civil rights suit alleging retaliation because of the plaintiff's allegations of corruption; the employee did not present evidence substantiating a link between his reports of corruption and subsequent adverse employment actions. Healy v. City of Chicago, #04-3155, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 14755 (7th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Federal court upholds a jury award of backpay and damages for emotional injury in a suit filed by a part-time white officer who claimed that he was fired for supporting the black police chief. Swanson v. City of Bruce, #3:00CV194, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16107 (N.D. Miss. 2006). [2006 FP Aug]
     Jury finds that management retaliated against three white women police officers who complained that an black commanding officer was discriminating against white subordinates. Verdicts total $325,000. O'Sullivan v. Chicago, #01CV9856 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (Doc. #1, 87, 88, 117 & 120); prior decis. at 396 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2005) and 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 953 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [2006 FP Aug]
     Former police chief is not entitled to dismissal of a lawsuit filed by an officer who was transferred to a less desirable position in retaliation for statements that he made against the chief. Miller v. Jones, #05-1932, 444 F.3d 929, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 9566 (7th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     A police chief was not entitled to dismissal of a suit claiming a retaliatory transfer where the officer's speech was on a matter of public concern, and where the unconstitutionality of the chief's actions was clearly established at the time they occurred. Miller v. Jones, #05-1932, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 9566 (7th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Unlike a hostile workplace environment claim, minor acts cannot be combined with older events to create a continuing pattern of retaliation, allegedly inflicted because of a lieutenant's cooperation in a federal corruption probe. O'Connor v. City of Newark, #05-2237, 440 F.3d 125, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 6050 (3rd Cir. 2006).
     Federal appeals court upholds a $75,000 verdict awarded to a city employee who suffered retaliatory action. Gronowski v. Spencer, #04-2605, 424 F.3d 285, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 20114 (2nd Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Changing an employee's work schedule might be an "adverse employment action" for purposes of a retaliation suit, even where the salary and duties are unchanged. Washington v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, #03-3818, 420 F.3d 658, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 17977, 96 FEP Cases (BNA) 545 (7th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Eighth Circuit rejects a retaliation suit filed by a state's attorney who lost reelection. He claimed that the county commissioners breached a nonretaliation provision in the employee's settlement agreement with the county. "The voters, not Richland County, decided that [the plaintiff] would no longer serve as State's Attorney," the panel concluded. Myers v. Richland County, #04-3653, 96 FEP Cases (BNA) 1537, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 24582 (8th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Because a lateral transfer without diminution in pay or benefits is not an adverse employment action, a woman correctional officer did not have a valid retaliation claim based on her transfer to a very undesirable assignment weeks after she filed a sexual harassment, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Jones v. Dist. of Col. Dept. of Corr., 04-7181, #96 FEP Cases (BNA) 1441, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 24523 (D.C. Cir. 2005), affirming 346 F.Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C. 2004). {N/R}
     A federal court in Manhattan has ruled that a denial of Emeritus status to a professor is not an "adverse employment action" even if it was in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. The honorary title conferred no benefits; all retired professors enjoyed office and telephone privileges. Zelnick v. Fashion Institute of Technology, #03 CV 8210 (Unreported, S.D.N.Y. 2005). {N/R}
     A county did not act unlawfully in terminating a mental health therapist who was seriously and permanently injured from an assault by a violent patient. "An employer is not guilty of retaliatory discrimination when the employee cannot perform the customary work without risk of either reinjury or further injury." County of San Luis Obispo v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., #B182145, 2005 Cal. App. Lexis 1637 (2d App. Dist. 2005). {N/R}
     The anti-retaliation clause contained in Title VII protects an employee who is named as a voluntary witness, even if he or she never called on to testify. Jute v. Hamilton Sundstran, #04-3927, 420 F.3d 166, 96 FEP Cases (BNA) 481, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 18038 (2nd Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     California Supreme Court upholds a retaliation claim where an employee refused to follow a supervisor's order that she reasonably believed to be discriminatory. The employee is protected even if he or she "does not explicitly state to her supervisor or employer that she believes the order to be discriminatory." Yanowitz v. L'Oreal, #S115154, 36 Cal.4th 1028, 2005 Cal. Lexis 8594 (2005). {N/R}
     Alleged retaliatory transfer of an Illinois State police lieutenant results in a verdict for $210,000 in compensatory damages and $472,300 in punitive damages against two superiors. Callahan v. Brueggemann, #03-CV-2167 ( C.D. Ill. 2005). [2005 FP Oct]
     Federal court overturns a $5 million verdict awarded to two women police officers, who were separated after unfavorable fitness exams ordered after they filed an unsuccessful suit in state court alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment. "Twelve different psychologists can give twelve different opinions about whether a police officer is fit for duty." Denhof v. City of Grand Rapids, #1:02-cv-275 (W.D. Mich. 2005). [2005 FP Aug]
     Federal appeals court upholds the right of a corrections dept. to refuse to rehire an employee that was previously fired for unacceptable work performance. The refusal was for a valid reason, and not because she had challenged her prior termination. Perry v. Alabama Dept. of Corr., #04-15054, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 7926 (Unpub. 11th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Eighth Circuit affirms a refusal to dismiss a lawsuit alleging retaliatory action. Although the sheriff said that he had demoted a sergeant for improper handling of a traffic citation, the plaintiff claimed that it was in retaliation for filing a lawsuit challenging the sheriff's promotional procedures. Powell v. Johnson, #04-1684, 405 F.3d 652, 22 IER Cases (BNA) 1443, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 7505 (8th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court affirms a $500,000 verdict for a former corrections officer, who was relentlessly harassed after he informed on a fellow officer. Baron v. Suffolk County Sheriff's Dept., #03-2718, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 4964, 403 F.3d 225 (1st Cir. 2005). [2005 FP Jun]
     An unrealized threat of termination to an employee who makes a sex discrimination claim is not an act of unlawful retaliation, unless the employee suffers an economic loss or other adverse employment action. Dick v. P.D.C., Inc, #03-4163, 397 F.3d 1256, 95 FEP Cases (BNA) 293, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 2256 (10th Cir. 2005), citing Jeffries v. State of Kansas, 147 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1998). {N/R}
     Illinois appellate court reiterates that the tort of retaliatory discharge is recognized only in only two situations: filing a worker's compensation claim and whistle-blowing activities. Sutherland v. Norfolk So. Ry. Co., #1-04-1631, 2005 Ill. App. Lexis 284 (2005). {N/R}
    Federal court dismisses 8 of 9 counts of a lawsuit brought by an FBI agent and his wife, claiming retaliation because his investigations of the Potts Party and Ruby Ridge standoff led to disciplinary action against high-ranking Bureau officials. FBI agents have limited rights to bring civil actions challenging adverse personnel actions. Roberts v. Dept. of Justice, #1:03cv1920, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5410 (D.D.C. 2005). [2005 FP Jun]
     An employer cannot escape liability for retaliation by claiming a worker was technically employed by a related or affiliated entity. The plaintiff claimed he was fired for filing a religious discrimination lawsuit. Flowers v. Columbia College, #04-2899, 397 F.3d 532, 95 FEP Cases (BNA) 237, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1977 (7th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Court declines to dismiss a retaliation lawsuit filed by a state trooper who was involuntarily transferred after filing a grievance and subjected to a pay cut shortly after he filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC. Brand v. North Car. Dept. of C.C. & Public Safety, #1:03-CV-00966, 352 F.Supp.2d 606, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26190 (M.D.N.C. 2004). {N/R}
     Second Circuit allows an officer to sue for coworker harassment, in retaliation for her causing another employee to get fired. Management was aware of the behavior and allegedly did nothing to stop it. Noviello v. City of Boston, #04-1719, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 2664 (1st Cir. 2005). [2005 FP Apr.]
     The reasons for terminating a police canine officer were legitimate, and because more than seven months had passed since he raised an overtime claim under the FLSA, there was no proof the city retaliated against him for filing an overtime lawsuit. Grey v. City of Oak Grove, Mo., #03-3532, 396 F.3d 1031, 10 WH Cases 2d (BNA) 495, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1453 (8th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Although the plaintiff-corrections officer was reassigned to a highly undesirable position after she filed a sexual harassment complaint, her suit for retaliation must fail because it was not a tangible adverse personnel action. Jones v. Dist. of Columbia, #00-2140, 346 F.Supp.2d 25, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23304 (D.D.C. 2004). {N/R}
     The Illinois Personnel Code does not imply a private right of action for state employees who are retaliated against by other state employees. Metzger v. DaRosa, #95913, 209 Ill.2d 30, 805 N.E.2d 1165, 2004 Ill. Lexis 354.
     Federal appeals court holds that in addition to backpay, damages for emotional distress and attorney's fees, a police officer who was not reinstated after a settlement agreement also was entitled to punitive damages against the city attorney that intentionally obstructed his reinstatement. Powell v. Alexander, #02-2218, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24476 (1st Cir. 2004).[2005 FP Jan]
     Federal judge overturns a $50,000 verdict for a retaliatory transfer, after a NYPD detective complained of national origin discrimination. Lateral change had no "adverse" action. Chu v. City of N.Y., 99 Civ. 11523, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18513, 84 FEP Cases (BNA) 1118 (Unpub. S.D.N.Y.). [2001 FP 28]
     Ex NYPD officer awarded $1.25 million for retaliation and constructive discharge, after she reported a lieutenant had sexually harassed her. Gonzalez v. Bratton, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12002 (Unrptd. S.D.N.Y.); verdict rptd. N.Y. Times p. B16 (10/14/2000). [2001 FP 13]
     Probationary police officer, whose termination was sought by the police dept. on the day after she filed a discrimination complaint with its equal employment opportunity office, did not show the timing was anything but a coincidence; she received negative performance evaluations for months. Vails v. Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 54 F.Supp.2d 367, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10635, 84 FEP Cases (BNA) 515 (S.D.N.Y.). {N/R}
     Jury awards federal agent $1 million after suffering retaliation from a superior because he had filed two discrimination complaints; award capped at $300,000. Salinas v. Rubin, #L-99-25, 38 (1871) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 854 (S.D. Tex. 6/26/2000). [2000 FP 157]
     Compensatory and punitive damages may not be recovered on claim of employment retaliation under the ADA. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1991 authorizes both, it is limited to enumerated subjects and it does not include the ADA retaliation provision. Brown v. City of Lee's Summit, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17671, , 9 AD Cases (BNA)1337 (W.D.Mo. 1999). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court allows a suit for FLSA retaliation, even if the employee or the employer is not covered under the law. Sapperstein v. Hager, # 98-3390, 188 F.3d 852, 5 WH Cases2d 929, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 19042 (7th Cir.). [1999 FP 170]
     The EEOC, in May 1998, modified its Compliance Manual and prohibits retaliation for “filing a charge, testifying, assisting or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under the applicable statute.” FEP Manual (BNA) 405:7581. The amendment also holds individual supervisors liable for any adverse treatment {405:7590 n.96}, relying on Munday v. W.M.N.A., 126 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 1997).
     Male employee, fired for snitching on his superior for what he thought was sexual harassment of a female worker, recovers just under a million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Reginelli v. Motion Ind., 987 F. Supp. 1137, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20721, 1997 WL 798177 (E.D. Ark. 1997). [1998 FP 92]
     California appeals court upholds a federal civil rights claim for withholding and tampering with evidence in a disciplinary hearing. Benach v. Co. of Los Angeles, 1997 Cal.App. Lexis 13. [1998 FP 42-3]
     Texas appellate court affirms $580,000 in actual and $1,250,000 in punitive damages against a sheriff's dept. for retaliatory discipline against a jail deputy who reported health violations. Lubbock Co. v. Strube, 1997 Tex.App. Lexis 5123. [1997 FP 171-2]
     Appellate justices also affirm $500,000 actual and $500,000 punitive damages for a police officer who suffered retaliatory discipline for arresting a sergeant for DWI. San Antonio v. Heim, 932 S.W.2d 287, 1996 Tex.App. Lexis 4437. [1997 FP 171-2]
     Justice Dept. brings its first ADA retaliation suit against a NM Police Dept. for terminating an officer who had won a disability discrimination settlement against the town. U.S. v. Town of Tatum (D.N.M., filed 9/11/97) [1997 FP 172]
     Appellate court affirms termination of corrections officer who knowingly wore her firearm into a secure area. She failed to prove that her pending claim for sexual harassment was the real reason for disciplinary action. Ramos v. Coombe, 654 N.Y.S.2d 454 (A.D. 1997). [1997 FP 164]
     Misconduct, not whistleblowing, was the reason for the discharge of an INS inspector. The decision to investigate the officer was not a pretext for retaliation. Geyer v. D.O.J., 1997 WL 163507 and 334944 (Fed.Cir.); 1996 WL 543268 (Fed.Cir.). {N/R}
     Kansas joins a growing number of states to recognize the tort of "retaliatory demotion". Brigham v. Dillon, 1997 Kan. Lexis 55, 12 IER Cases (BNA) 1339. See also Scott v. PG&E, 11 Cal.4th 454, 904 P.2d 834 (1995); Zimmerman v. Buchheit, 164 Ill.2d 29, 645 N.E.2d 877 (1995). [1997 FP 91]
     Supreme Court holds that former workers are “employees” within the meaning of Title VII, for the purpose of enforcing its anti-retaliation provisions. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 117 S.Ct. 843, 1997 U.S. Lexis 690, 72 FEP Cases (BNA) 1856. [1997 FP 74]
     Federal appeals court allows Title VII suit for post-termination retaliatory actions. Veprinsky v. Fluor Daniel, 87 F.3d 881, 1996 U.S.App. Lexis 15323, 71 FEP Cases 170 (7th Cir.). [1997 FP 13]
     Former deputy proved her termination from the sheriff's dept. was substantially motivated by her filing of a complaint with the EEOC. Spencer v. Byrd, 917 F.Supp. 368 (M.D.N.C. 1995). {N/R}
     Sergeant could be disciplined for refusing to follow his department's standby policy, in spite of his F.L.S.A. claim and service as a union board member. Knickerbocker v. City of Stockton, 81 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 1996). [1996 FP 136-7]
     Justice Dept. pays $180,000 to white agent who complained of a retaliatory suspension after reporting the harassment of his black partner by other DEA agents. Probst v. Reno, 1995 U.S.Dist. Lexis 19209, 917 F.Supp. 554 (N.D.Ill.). [1996 FP 92]
     Retaliation by employers against individuals for complaining of or opposing actions that they believe are discriminatory is illegal and employers can be held liable for tolerating discriminatory behavior, N.Y. Executive Law Sec. 296. Herlihy v. M.M.A., 214 A.D.2d 250, 633 N.Y.S.2d 106 (1995). {N/R}
     Federal courts reject a woman police sergeant's Title VII claims, following her termination for filing a false complaint of sexual harassment and offering forged evidence; other allegations survive appeal. Wilson v. Univ. of Texas, 773 F.Supp. 958; modif. 60 FEP Cases (BNA) 88 (5th Cir. 1992). [1993 FP 12-13]
     Federal court allows correctional officers to sue superiors and union officials for harassment, allegedly invoked to retaliate against them for complaining of prisoner brutality, imposed by other officers. Corrente v. St. of Rhode Island, 759 F.Supp. 73 (D.R.I. 1991). [1992 FP 70]
     Woman police officer who played a prominent role in sex discrimination litigation was passed over for promotion. Court orders her promotion; back pay differential awarded. U.S. v. City of Montgomery, 755 F.Supp. 1522 (M.D.Ala. 1990). [1992 FP 44-5]
     City employee who was allegedly fired for refusing to engage in misrepresentations used to defend a lawsuit was awarded $98,265. Appellate court reverses and rules ex-employee could not sue for retaliatory discharge. Lambert v. City of Lake Forest, 542 N.E.2d 1216 (Ill. App. 1989).