Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02283/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02283-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arch Bradley
Appellant
Larry K. James
Appellee
University of Central Arkansas
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2283

___________

Arch Bradley, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Larry K. James, individually * District Court for the

and in his official capacity as * Eastern District of Arkansas.

an employee of the University *

of Central Arkansas; University of *

Central Arkansas, * 

*

Defendants-Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: November 16, 2006

 Filed: March 2, 2007 

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

________________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

After being fired by the University of Central Arkansas Police Department

(UCAPD), Captain Arch Bradley filed suit, alleging age discrimination, Fourteenth

Amendment violations, First Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state

law. The district court1

 initially granted defendants summary judgment without

Appellate Case: 06-2283 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2007 Entry ID: 3284220
-2-

opposition on all but the § 1983 First Amendment claim. It later granted defendants

summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, filed against UCAPD Chief Larry James in

his official and individual capacities. Bradley appeals the latter decision. We affirm.

On Friday, February 6, 2004, police at the UCAPD received a call reporting a

man with a gun in Hughes Hall, a student dormitory. Bradley, the highest-ranking

officer on duty, remained at the UCAPD station directly across the street from Hughes

Hall while six UCAPD officers and a group of Conway Police Department officers

responded. 

Minutes later, one resident of Hughes Hall telephoned his father to tell him

police were running through the building with automatic weapons. The father in turn

called James at home, asking what was going on. James called the police station,

spoke to Bradley, and decided to come in. When James arrived on the scene, the

situation had been resolved – two students had been firing BB pistols at each other

and had been found and arrested. The incident was over very quickly – the call had

come in at 9:32 p.m., and officers were writing their reports by 10:17 p.m. James

asked Bradley why he had not gone over to Hughes Hall. Bradley told him he had too

much paperwork to do, and added that if James had asked him to go, he would have

immediately done so. James orally made his displeasure clear to Bradley and others

over Bradley’s not responding to the call himself.

James asked the UCAPD’s number-two officer, Major Glen Stacks, to conduct

an investigation of the incident. Stacks met with Bradley to discuss the incident, and

before he could say anything, Bradley told him James had arrived on the scene

intoxicated and had disrupted the investigation. Bradley also told Stacks he had tried

to call University of Central Arkansas (UCA) acting general counsel Jack Gillean the

day before about the matter, but did not get in touch with him. 

Appellate Case: 06-2283 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2007 Entry ID: 3284220
-3-

Stacks told James and Steve Wood, UCA’s vice president for human resources,

about Bradley’s allegation. Stacks and Wood met with Bradley, and Bradley repeated

his allegation that James had been intoxicated the night of the Hughes Hall incident

and had interfered with the investigation.

On February 27, 2004, Wood sent a letter to Bradley stating, “Your inaction on

February 6th and your unsubstantiated comments about Chief James are both

terminable offenses.” The letter offered Bradley the choice to retire or be fired.

Bradley did not respond. On March 16, James sent Bradley a letter firing him for

“deliberate or gross neglect of duty” during the Hughes Hall incident. Bradley’s

accusations that James had been intoxicated during the Hughes Hall incident were not

referenced in the letter.

Bradley filed suit. The district court granted summary judgment on the First

Amendment retaliation claim against James in his official and individual capacities.

This appeal followed.

This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. The question before

the district court, and this court on appeal, is whether the record, when viewed in the

light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that there is no genuine issue as

to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). 

Even assuming Bradley was fired because of his allegations against James, and

that his allegations were a matter of public concern, he cannot prevail. This case is

controlled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951

(2006), decided in May 2006, after the March 2006 decision of the district court. 

Garcetti applies the two-part Pickering test to determine whether a public

employee’s speech should receive constitutional protection. See Pickering v. Bd. of

Appellate Case: 06-2283 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2007 Entry ID: 3284220
2

 If the answer is yes, the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. The

question next becomes whether the government employer had an adequate

justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the

general public. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568. As we answer the first Pickering question

in the negative under Garcetti, we need not address this second question.

-4-

Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968). First, did the employee speak as a citizen on a

matter of public concern? If the answer to that question is no, the employee has no

First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer’s reaction to the

speech.2

 

We cannot find Bradley spoke as a citizen. Garcetti’s test for whether a person

spoke as a citizen or as a public employee comes down to whether the speech was

made “pursuant to official responsibilities.” 126 S. Ct. at 1961. “Restricting speech

that owes its existence to a public employee's professional responsibilities does not

infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply

reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has

commissioned or created.” Id. at 1960; see also McGee v. Pub. Water Supply, Dist.

#2 of Jefferson County, Mo., 471 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2006). 

As a police officer, Bradley had an official responsibility to cooperate with the

investigation Stacks was conducting into the UCAPD’s response to the Hughes Hall

incident. His allegations of intoxication against James were made at no other time

than during this investigation, and thus his speech was pursuant to his official and

professional duties. We affirm.

________________

Appellate Case: 06-2283 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/02/2007 Entry ID: 3284220