Opinion ID: 2994382
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: March, April, May, and September 1997 Bulletin

Text: Board Notes On appeal, Kuchenreuther contends that the actions of District personnel to remove these postings occurred on Chief Jones’ direction, making Chief Jones personally liable. Kuchenreuther argues that through initiating an IAD investigation against [her] on the U.P.A.F. posting, Chief Jones established his interpretation of the MPD rule concerning postings on MPD walls which the supervisors were obligated to enforce. However, Kuchenreuther ignores the fact that she was informed that all postings on the bulletin board required a supervisor’s initials and stamp before they could be posted. Despite the fact that she was informed of the rules concerning posting, Kuchenreuther refused to follow police procedure and persisted on posting materials without the required stamp and supervisor’s initials; consequently the notices were removed./19 Kuchenreuther’s argument that she was able to post anything she wished via the Union’s negotiated agreement is immaterial to her constitutional claim. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the fact that Sergeant Bohl or Captain Bartholomew removed notices because they failed to comply with departmental posting requirements cannot give rise to liability under section 1983. See Milwaukee Police Ass’n v. Jones, 192 F.3d 742, 750 (7th Cir. 1999) (The Pickering test recognizes the government’s interest when acting as an employer in the efficiency of its workplace.); see also Bonds v. Milwaukee Co., 207 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2000).