geoffrey church like to reserve two minutes please mr church spoke out on matters of public concern in two separate areas the first year he spoke out with a speech to the courts from one nine hundred eighty three hundred ninety nine seventeen years regarding city of reno's violations of federal military law it is inherently a matter of public concern whether city governments are violating federal law you know i could agree with you  district court the question really in the case boils down to whether it was a substantial factor in the universe action that was taken the district courts or there's no evidence and there's a there's causation all right let me address because the nation we know that the defendant oppose mr church's speech regarding the rights of the military employees because for three reasons the specially they fought him in every thread or all court action even when they didn't have to he was granted a consent decree and part of the consent decree a rino file a policy regarding reservists and guardsmen two years went by they refuse they wouldn't file if he files a contempt action on it which city of reno loses it's obvious they're going to lose because the court order said you've got to file a policy they refused to file a policy my point is that they fought him on every action for over seventeen years that's opposition to speech and i think he wanted to the military came back and there were all these  valuations the fitness for duty and instead of going to the civil service commission he just basically left he was not required to go to this is the civil service commission the evaluations found that he was not able to return to work  what happened and i interpret proximity to the events i mean what i realized was this long history but what's the best evidence you know that there was something that happened and that he spoke out just before these events and there was retaliation because of that speech all right well first we can't ignore that he had almost twenty years of speech opposing the city of leon stretch thomas question and temporal proximity temporal proximity for two thousand and one two thousand and two and two thousand and three he spoke out about the city of reno's the actual wrongdoing by city r p t reno police department officials and city government officials refusing to understand his the eschewing harassment and hostility that he was facing at the police department with the knowledge and approval of city officials and reno officials he was speaking out in all those years even last year he spoke out shortly before he was terminated he issued a letter to the city government people saying they are harassing me they're being hostile to me i need i want to use the workplace violence policy he gets a b tell him it's a joke they write they paint a target on the back of this vest they tell him it's a joke can't you take a joke they say he wanted to have his work environment safe for him that he wanted in his doctors and the doctor for the city of reno both said he should not return to work until and unless it's a safe environment is the arena hired somebody and that's what they say that this happened in two thousand and one two thousand and two and two thousand and three so that so the i guess the policymakers regarding escalating harassment and hostility within the police department is a matter of public concern because people care about there's supervisory tolerance in a police department for escalating coworker harassment and hostility to the extent that an officer feels unsafe in doing his job it's a matter of public concern because people care whether an officer is so worried about his personal safety that he won't be able to protect them i essential that officers be able to complain about misconduct by other officers and legitimate officer safety issues make no mistake this was actual wrong doing that he was reporting other officers threatening to his ass to beat him up giving him a bullet painting a target on the back of his that he was reporting that he was complaining about that and he was complaining what it amounted to a custom and practice by officials  escalating hostility by his coworkers the city of reno ignored that the only issue that's here is the first amendment issue that's correct because you had a constructively discharged theory in the court below so there's no evidence to suggest you had a right to appeal to the civil service commission and so that's that's that's gone so he was not constructively discharged what we're arguing that he was constructive discharge means that he can't take it any longer the city of reno issued him an ultimatum first of all they send him to this doctor the doctor says he's not fit to return to work because he perceives and he's reasonable in his perceptions that he may be harmed don't try to have a judgment that he was not constructively discharged you know we don't we contend that that's an adverse action when his own doctor in the city of reno's own doctor find that he is unable to return to the work environment and the city of reno ignores that and says that he's got to return or he can quit or they're going to fire him that is an ultimatum he could not do his job that is that was so intolerable for him that he was unable to return it is his job it's not like no one found these years and you can't ignore that didn't take place in a vacuum you're talking about the day but there are individual to fantasize case so about police chief hoover what what's your best evidence that he personally participated in a deprivation of right because of damage all right when he was personally named in the lawsuit that was filed against the city of reno he was aware of the custom and practice of condoning harassment because my client wrote him copied him with participated in the deprivation of right they were on the committee that did away with the task force to change the workplace violence policy both mcneely and hoover were on that he tried to use the workplace violence policy which was designed expressly for the purpose he tried to use it and they told him they eliminated it when he tried to use it you can't ignore as close alter tells us on a strict reliance on timing this speech went on for more than twenty years and it was condoned it was approved by coworkers it was approved by his evaluator who wrote an evaluation instead mr church should expect that his coworkers are going to be hostile and sarcastic to him because he takes leave because of his military duty they all knew about that they all resented in doing that they were deliberately indifferent to can't he take a joke that's that's what perry did darnley was the one that gave him the bullet all my client wanted was an independent evaluation because he had a legitimate fear he had five officers threatened to physically harm him he was denied cover he had supervisors present when they tried to physically harm him when he gets presented an award ceremony with a live forty five caliber hollow point bullet as a token of the esteem of the police department refused to investigate it when he tried to use the workplace violence policy they eliminated the policy about thirty seconds left you want to save some for a battle that you wanted to save two minutes i'm sorry thank case over the next twenty years so just church was promoted to the position of sergeant there was never any action taken the terminator's employment it was never action taken to suspend him without pay there was no action taken to demote him there was no action taken to involuntarily transfer him or a reduction in duties no actions of any sort of that nature were taken against him and the remaining twenty that is employment he claims in me you have a judgment in your favor holding that he wasn't anywhere over twenty years of any comments that anyone made that because you made this last right this lawsuit against the city or any of these defendants that that's why anything is being done to you there's no evidence of that sort in the record and the final ordinary against lawsuits that were brought by the plaintiff she cited no authority to show that that amounts to opposition to one's right to bring a lawsuit and there's no authority of any sort of that presented she says that with respect to the hundred eighty nine action i believe it was to enforce the original consent decree where the city had not yet promulgated a policy that it agreed to do when it entered into the consent decree but the city city knew that the city  he hadn't proven that sort of case so there really is as far as we can tell the district court was totally accurate in saying there is simply no evidence of any causation between any claimed adverse employment action and  district court does seem to believe that the denial of special assignments may constitute an adverse employment action is that right he made some reference to that that could constitute that but that was that was litigated in the one thousand nine hundred seven contempt action in that case the plaintiff claimed that he had been the night special assignments because of his taking militarily he had the opportunity at that time to talk about if he claimed it was all being done because of his first amendment rights he had the opportunity to raise that but  didn't but he claimed that it was being done for that judge read at that time found against him found that he failed to carry his burden at that time to show that any of these actions that the now special assignments were because of his military service or his absence from military service in one of the individual defendants were involved in any of the incidents except for the time of donnelly presentation of the bullet incident none of the individual defendants were involved in any of the actions that he claims caused in this great concern we don't know who i guess we first day is working and i asked the work environment i mean it's a difficult job i mean you're out on the street he complains that he wasn't given adequate coverage brings up three instances over twenty three years of employment the first one that he talks about in even a bottle like a cover it's where detention of the individual for civil protective custody in agreed that it was inappropriate the charges there were two incidents where he got response one a lieutenant overseen it properly cut back the responding officers code three response to a normal officers and some of them are just normal things that you're going to sergeant supervising other officers officers sometimes get angry at their supervising sergeant the incident with officer reed where sergeant church knew at the time that this this officers already upset for personal reasons he came in and told them something the already knew the officer officer reed got up from the table backed away from sergeant church and said get that man away from me and then left the room ma was prefers the question he was critical of the unit he wrote a memorandum internal memorandum regarding the the affairs i believe but i was an appraiser he was praising the unit that they were angry at him because as he was criticizing me on the internal memory i don't know if that's why they were angry at him i don't think there's any i don't think there's any evidence of exactly why individuals in the universe agree with him but that there wasn't the best relationship that's pretty but other than that i don't know i don't have any other evidence of that i mean it seems to me that i think that this record our position is the district court properly determine this matter there is no evidence of any link any causation make between any act that was taken in any protected speech the workplace violence complaints concern only the manager review that with the city attorney's office he said that he actually did and he didn't carry it out but an investigation once was done church was by the book officer he wanted everything done correctly and that's why you challenge the violations of federal military law by the city government he  almost twenty years of fighting them in federal court most of the time winning because the city of reno resented his and they were opposed to his speech regarding federal military law for guardsmen and reservists because ation is a question of fact we believe that a jury could reasonably find the city was motivated to get rid of mr church for his twenty years of protesting violations of federal military law in letters and in laws down for his military service which was opposed to the spirit in the law of of the law he challenged that in a contempt citation he won the officer but before he did that he gr internally as he did everything else city of reno so it's just fine they can grade him down for his military absences when he was a reservist the officer wrote tellingly in his  duty one of the aspects of the case that i focused on was the denial of fossil special assignments that could have written resulted in additional you know this i just told us that that issue was brought to litigation in one nine hundred ninety seven before judge reed and it was determined that there was nothing to your client's claim about denials specialist times you have any answers to that yes i do it was it was in the form of a contempt citation and the judge didn't feel that and that is that for contempt there's a higher standard the judge didn't feel that it is that it was dispositive however he was the only sergeant who worked there twenty four years that never got a special assignment the only one brought a contempt action against the city that's correct  it was part of the yes it was part of it and he did not prevail he did prevail on another aspect in that can on this on that on that particular product is the special sign on the special assignments he did not prevail