Opinion ID: 4113128
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Helget’s First Amendment Retaliation Claims

Text: Helget asserted three First Amendment claims, all singularly directed at the City’s purported retaliation for her support of Dryden’s federal court litigation. Specifically, she claims the City terminated her employment in retaliation for her exercising her First Amendment right to testify truthfully, to speak out on a matter of public concern, and for conspiring to violate her First Amendment rights. Because all of Helget’s First Amendment claims are interrelated, we address them as one. 2 We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards the district court applied under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). Smothers v. Solvay Chems., Inc., 740 F.3d 530, 538 (10th Cir. 2014). “The Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A public employer may not “discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of 2 Helget’s two speech claims are functionally equivalent, as they are both directed at her First Amendment retaliation allegations. In other words, they are part of the same overarching First Amendment retaliation claim. And her last claim, conspiracy to violate her First Amendment rights, necessarily requires Helget to first show a deprivation of her First Amendment rights. -7- speech.” Rankin, 483 U.S. at 383; see also Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142 (1983). “Speech by citizens on matters of public concern lies at the heart of the First Amendment,” and “public employees do not renounce their citizenship when they accept employment.” Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369, 2377 (2014). Therefore, the Supreme Court “has cautioned time and again that public employers may not condition employment on the relinquishment of constitutional rights.” Id. Nevertheless, a public employer must be able to control the operations of its workplace. Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968); Lytle, 138 F.3d at 863. “Government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employees’ words and actions; without it, there would be little chance for the efficient provision of public services.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006). Thus, “the First Amendment protection of a public employee’s speech depends on a careful balance ‘between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.’” Lane, 134 S. Ct. at 2374 (quoting Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568). The familiar Garcetti/Pickering test governs our review of Helget’s First Amendment retaliation claims. The test consists of five steps: -8- (1) whether the speech was made pursuant to an employee’s official duties; (2) whether the speech was on a matter of public concern; (3) whether the government’s interests, as employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public service are sufficient to outweigh the plaintiff’s free speech interests; (4) whether the protected speech was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action; and (5) whether the defendant would have reached the same employment decision in the absence of the protected conduct. Trant v. Oklahoma, 754 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting Dixon v. Kirkpatrick, 553 F.3d 1294, 1302 (10th Cir. 2009)). The first three steps concern questions of law for the courts, and the last two concern questions of fact. Id. The district court focused its inquiry on the second and third steps. The parties agreed Helget’s speech was not in response to her official duties, and the court did not reach the fourth and fifth steps. Because Helget’s claims can be resolved at the third step of the Garcetti/Pickering test, we confine our review to that step. See Trant, 754 F.3d at 1166. The district court, in weighing the City’s interests as an employer against Helget’s interest in her speech, found the balance weighed in favor of the City. The court characterized Helget’s interest as weak because, for one, Helget did not claim to know why City officials removed Dryden from the ballistic vest ordering list. Comparatively, the court reasoned the City had a strong operational interest in maintaining trust among its employees. And Helget’s position as administrative secretary was “unique” because maintaining the Department’s -9- confidences—and the trust resulting from that responsibility—was paramount to her effectively performing her duties. When a public employee speaks as a citizen on a matter of public concern, a court next examines “whether the government had ‘an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the public’ based on the government’s needs as an employer.” Lane, 134 S. Ct. at 2380 (quoting Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418). “The only public employer interest that outweighs the employee’s free speech interest is ‘avoiding direct disruption, by the speech itself, of the public employer’s internal operations and employment relationships.’” Trant, 754 F.3d at 1166 (citation omitted). In balancing the interests, we do not consider the employee’s speech in a “vacuum.” Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388. Rather, “the manner, time, and place of the employee’s expression are relevant.” Id. Pertinent factors to consider include whether the statement: “[1] impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among coworkers, [2] has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or [3] impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.” Id. We have stated “the primary consideration is the impact of the disputed speech ‘on the effective functioning of the public employer’s enterprise.’” Lytle, 138 F.3d at 868 (quoting Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388). A public employer need not show that the employee’s speech in fact disrupted internal operations and -10- employment relationships. Trant, 754 F.3d at 1166. Instead, “[i]t need[] only to establish that the speech could potentially become so disruptive to the [employer’s] operations as to outweigh [the employee’s] interest in the speech.” Id.; Rock v. Levinski, 791 F.3d 1215, 1220 (10th Cir. 2015) (“The employer need not await the detrimental impact before taking action. Preemptive steps to avoid such an impact can be acceptable, and we ‘will generally defer to a public employer’s reasonable predictions of disruption . . . .’” (citation omitted)). A public employer’s burden to justify its restriction on speech “increases in proportion to the value of that speech in the public debate.” Curtis v. Okla. City Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 147 F.3d 1200, 1213 (10th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted); see also Lane, 134 S. Ct. at 2380 (“We have also cautioned, however, that ‘a stronger showing [of government interests] may be necessary if the employee’s speech more substantially involve[s] matters of public concern.’” (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 152)). And where the employee is acting as a whistleblower, exposing government corruption, his or her interest is entitled to greater weight. Lytle, 138 F.3d at 865. When an employee refuses to take advantage of internal channels, however—i.e., by airing grievances outside the department—an employee’s interest may be diminished when the chosen form of speech is “unnecessarily disruptive.” Id. at 865. We begin our analysis with the City’s interests. We have long recognized that loyalty and confidence among employees is especially important in a law -11- enforcement setting. See Worrell v. Henry, 219 F.3d 1197, 1206 (10th Cir. 2000); Moore v. City of Wynnewood, 57 F.3d 924, 934 (10th Cir. 1995) (The “need [for workplace harmony] is particularly acute in the context of law enforcement, where there is a ‘heightened interest . . . in maintaining discipline and harmony among employees.’” (citation omitted). And “[t]hese concerns are even greater in a relatively small department, where a minor disturbance in morale might loom large.” Lytle, 138 F.3d at 867; see also Moore, 57 F.3d at 934. Helget’s position as administrative secretary required her to work closely with Police Chief Scheibler and Assistant Police Chief Dawson. The position also required her to handle confidential information in administering her duties. Indeed, the job description explicitly states “[t]his employee should possess . . . the ability to maintain confidentiality” and that one essential function is “maintain[ing] confidential records and files.” App. 4 (Memorandum and Opinion, Mar. 19, 2015, Doc. 211) (quoting personnel manual). Thus, ensuring the protection of the Department’s confidences was crucial to Helget’s job performance, and any diminution in trust by Scheibler or Dawson because of her inability to maintain confidences could have affected her working relationship with her direct supervisors. Scheibler testified that after Helget disclosed confidential information in her affidavit, he no longer trusted her. In other words, he questioned whether he could convey confidential information to her related to departmental matters, an -12- essential part of her role with the Department. 3 Scheibler’s concern also necessarily implicated Helget’s loyalty to the Department—namely, whether she was devoted to her supervisors and their obligation to manage the Department, or whether her allegiance was to others outside the Department. Thus, Scheibler’s testimony supports the finding that Helget’s speech had a detrimental impact on her working relationship with her superiors, which required personal trust and loyalty. See Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388. The loss of trust in Helget would have also affected the regular operation of the Department and her ability to perform her duties. See id. Helget’s role 3 We reject Helget’s argument that the district court misapplied the summary judgment standard by wrongfully accepting Scheibler’s testimony as credible. While it is true that “[o]n summary judgment, a district court may not weigh the credibility of the witnesses,” Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1165 (10th Cir. 2008), this ordinarily means “the court may not grant summary judgment based on its own perception that one witness is more credible than another,” id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). But where a nonmoving party (who has the burden of persuasion at trial) fails to provide admissible evidence rebutting testimony offered by the moving party, the question is not one of credibility, but rather the absence of evidence creating a triable issue of fact. And in that regard, Helget “must do more than ‘merely assert that the jury might’ disbelieve the testimony of [Scheibler]; [s]he must present h[er] own affirmative evidence of those facts which are contradicted by the interested testimony.” See Wood v. Handy & Harman Co., 318 F. App’x 602, 606–07 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 256–57); see also Nat’l Am. Ins. Co. v. Am. Re-Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 736, 742 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Standing alone, attacks on the credibility of evidence offered by a summary judgment movant do not warrant denial of a summary judgment motion.”). Here, Helget failed to offer admissible evidence contradicting Scheibler’s testimony. Even further, it seems obvious that City officials would have lost trust in Helget after she unilaterally revealed the Department’s confidences to an adverse party in pending litigation against the City. -13- required her to “facilitate the smooth operation of the Department” and “act[] as a general information center.” Supp. App. 141. Scheibler and Dawson relied on Helget for an array of tasks, many of which required handling confidential matters. Like many administrative secretaries, Helget was effectively the Department’s nerve center or liaison between the Department’s decision makers and others in the Department. Had Scheibler and Dawson been compelled to work with Helget after learning she revealed confidential information—notably, she was terminated six days after Scheibler learned of the affidavit—the strained relationship would have certainly interfered with the regular operation of the Department. 4 And, if Scheibler refused to convey confidential information to Helget, it would have impeded her ability to perform the duties essential to her job. Thus, based on the facts, the City’s operational interests as a public employer are strong. On the other side of the ledger is Helget’s interest in her speech. Helget maintains her interest is significant because her statements disclosed misconduct 4 To the extent Helget argues the district court misapplied the summary judgment standard by wrongfully presuming Helget’s speech caused workplace disharmony, we reject it. Our precedent makes clear that “actual” disruption is not required. Trant, 754 F.3d at 1166 (“[T]he Board was not required to show that the speech had in fact disrupted the OCME’s internal operations. . . . It needed only to establish that the speech could potentially become so disruptive . . . .”). And, as we have discussed, the circumstances of Helget’s speech could have (and most likely did) cause disharmony between her and her superiors. -14- by the City. In particular, in the context of the Dryden litigation, Helget’s sworn affidavit placed into question the City’s stated reason for terminating Dryden. The City claimed it terminated Dryden because of an incident occurring in late December 2010. But Helget averred that, as early as December 6, 2010, the City had decided not to order Dryden a new ballistic vest—presumably because he would not be around to wear it. But Helget admits that at the time she signed the affidavit she did not know why Department officials removed Dryden from the ballistic vest ordering list. And a plain reading of the affidavit does not reveal any improprieties or misconduct by the City. Specific to the Dryden litigation, Helget simply attested to the fact that Dryden was generally known to be active in the local Fraternal Order of Police chapter and that she was instructed to remove Dryden from the ballistic vest ordering list in early December 2010. Thus, it cannot be said with any certainty that Helget was disclosing government misconduct. Even further, the manner in which Helget elected to air her discourse about Dryden’s termination minimizes her claimed interest in the speech. She signed an affidavit in support of a party who was adverse to the City in pending litigation. Before taking that step, Helget did not raise the issue with her superiors, let alone inform them after executing the affidavit. She had several opportunities to address the issue with Scheibler and Dawson, who, importantly, were not in command when the Dryden termination decision was made. This fact intensified -15- the disruptive impact of Helget’s disclosure. We therefore conclude Helget’s chosen form of speech was disruptive, see Lytle, 138 F.3d at 865, and that her interest in making the statements should be discounted accordingly. Considering the circumstances as a whole, we agree with the district court that the City’s strong interests as a public employer outweigh Helget’s interest in supplying an affidavit in a former employee’s litigation.