Opinion ID: 3068680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Finding of Insubordination

Text: Here, Smith claims that the district court erred in determining that his behavior was “clearly insubordinate” because “defiance of a rule that is in violation of the First Amendment is NOT punishable as ‘insubordination.’” Smith argues that the City’s disciplinary process defines insubordination differently than the district court; and therefore, the district court erred in determining that he was insubordinate. Because the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants with respect to this claim, this court must view “all facts and evidence . . . in the light most favorable to [Smith].” LeMarie v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2007). However, Smith offers no evidence or authority in support of his claim that his insubordination charge stemmed solely from his violation of an unconstitutional APD General Order. Smith offers only the conclusory allegation that “any rule purporting to punish Tony Smith for disobeying [APD General Order A201.04(G)(2)] is likewise invalid and unenforceable.” Pursuant to APD General Order A201.04(E)(2), an officer is guilty of insubordination if he defies “the authority of any supervisor by obvious 10 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/24/2012 No. 10-51236 disrespect, arrogant or disrespectful language or conduct, ridicule, or bold challenges to orders issued . . . .” APD General Order A201.04(E)(2). In contrast to Smith's argument, insubordination does not require a violation of a APD General Order, much less violation of APD General Order A201.04(G)(2). Prior to posting the highly personal and embarrassing allegations about Acevedo, Smith showed that information to two other officers in response to Acevedo’s termination of Lee. Smith further commented to at least one other officer that Acevedo’s termination of Lee was hypocritical, or “How is he (Acevedo) going to terminate Lee for sexual harassment when he (Acevedo) did the same thing?” Here, it is evident that Smith’s conduct was disrespectful and was obviously intended to ridicule Acevedo and his decisions concerning the APD. According to APD General Order A201.04(E)(2) and the record before us, the district court correctly determined that Smith’s conduct constituted insubordination, regardless of whether it also violated APD General Order A201.04(G)(2).