Opinion ID: 156102
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pickering Applied to this Case

Text: As the district court found and the parties acknowledge, Mr. Lytle’s statements to Mr. Berg and to the press involve matters of public concern. See Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 796 (10th Cir. 1988) (“Speech which discloses any evidence of corruption, impropriety, or other malfeasance on the part of city testimony in a judicial proceeding has a compelling interest in testifying truthfully and the government employer can have an offsetting interest in preventing her from doing so only in the rarest of cases.”); Smith v. Hightower, 693 F.2d 359, 368 (5th Cir. 1982) (“[T]he first amendment protects the right to testify truthfully at trial.”). In the instant case, because Mr. Lytle has not challenged the district court’s conclusion that his grand jury testimony was not at issue in his First Amendment claim, see Aplt’s App. vol. III at 1093-94, we need not decide what weight to afford this testimony in the Pickering balancing. However, we do note that Chief Kitchings stated to a reporter that Mr. Lytle “ha[d] a duty and obligation to testify to the grand jury” and that he did not terminate Mr. Lytle because of his grand jury testimony. See Aplt’s App. vol. III at 1017 (transcript of July 17, 1991 telephone conversation between Chief Kitchings and Phil LeBeau.). 14 officials, in terms of content, clearly concerns matters of public import.”). We therefore proceed to balance Mr. Lytle’s interest in expression against the City’s interest as an employer in regulating the speech in question. We begin with Mr. Lytle’s interests, noting the significance of the fact that he has accused government officials of serious wrongdoing. “When balancing the rights of the employee against those of the employer, an employee’s First Amendment interest is entitled to greater weight where he is acting as a whistle blower in exposing government corruption.” Id. at 797. Nevertheless, there are also several important aspects of Mr. Lytle’s speech that diminish his interests under the Pickering inquiry. In considering the time, place, and manner of the disputed speech, this circuit has considered whether the employee used “less disruptive internal channels, rather than going outside the city administration.” Id. at 798; see also Johnsen v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 3 891 F.2d 1485, 1494 (10th Cir. 1989) (noting that the court should consider whether the employee “used internal complaint procedures” and finding that the “[p]laintiff’s decision to contact outside agencies prior to using the complaint mechanism of the school was unnecessarily disruptive because there was no indication that the internal mechanism would not be sufficient.”). Here, according to Mr. Lytle’s own account, Lieutenant Coleman was the only person within the Haysville Police Department whom he had informed of the 15 “dead or dying” comments before he spoke to Mr. Berg about the Wilson case. Although he had submitted two written reports regarding his investigation of the Wilson shooting, these reports had a significant omission: Mr. Lytle failed to included any statements about the “dead or dying” comments. Further, Mr. Lytle made no other written record of them before he spoke to Mr. Berg. Additionally, before he spoke to Mr. Berg, Mr. Lytle had not discussed these alleged comments with Chief Kitchings, and he has offered no justification for his failure to do so. Even as to Lieutenant Coleman, there is no indication that, before he spoke to Mr. Berg, Mr. Lytle followed up his initial conversation about the “dead or dying” comments in any way. As the Supreme Court has noted, “[t]he burden of caution [an employee] bear[s] with respect to the words [he] speak[s]” varies with his job responsibilities. Rankin, 483 U.S. at 390. Mr. Lytle’s responsibilities as a police officer who had worked on the Wilson investigation clearly called for a degree of caution that he failed to exercise. We therefore conclude, just as in Johnsen, that Mr. Lytle’s failure to pursue his allegations internally indicates that his speech was “unnecessarily disruptive.” Johnsen, 891 F.2d at 1494. That conclusion diminishes the weight we afford his interest in the Pickering balancing. Moreover, a government employee’s interest in whistleblowing is entitled to little weight if a reasonable person in his shoes would not have believed that there was government corruption or wrongdoing. Cf. Moore, 57 F.3d at 933 16 (assuming, without deciding, that recklessly false allegations of wrongdoing “are either unprotected by the First Amendment or, at least, that such intentional falsity would weigh heavily against protection”); Johnsen, 891 F.2d at 1493 (affording less weight to an employee’s interests because her erroneous statement was “at least careless and could be characterized as reckless in light of the predictable impact that such a statement would have upon the public”). Thus, under the Pickering inquiry, we must consider whether there was a reasonable basis for Mr. Lytle’s two principal allegations of wrongdoing: (1) that his fellow officers committed second degree murder by failing to render aid to Mr. Wilson and (2) that the Department sought to coverup the officers’ misconduct. As to the failure to render aid to Mr. Wilson, we do not believe that it was reasonable for Mr. Lytle to conclude that there was government misconduct. The evidence indicated that the officers’ decision not to perform CPR was based on the training that they had received. Moreover, Mr. Lytle himself had been trained not to move or give first aid to critically injured persons who are still breathing, because doing so risks further injury and might do more harm than good. See Aplt’s App. vol. I at 305 (Tr. of dep. of Mr. Lytle, dated Feb. 24, 1993). Although Mr. Lytle’s suggestion that direct pressure should have been applied to Mr. Wilson’s wound may merit evaluation by the Department, there is no evidence in the record indicating that the officers’ failure to render first aid was 17 motivated by an intent to harm Mr. Wilson or reflected reckless indifference to his welfare. 3 We reach a similar conclusion as to Mr. Lytle’s allegation of a Department coverup. We note that, as evidence of such a coverup, Mr. Lytle points only to the following: after the shooting, Mr. Lytle reported Lieutenant Powers’s “dead or dying” comment to Lieutenant Coleman, and Lieutenant Coleman did not order Mr. Lytle to make a report. See id. vol. III at 825-27. We do not believe that this evidence indicates that the Department was engaged in a cover-up. The record merely indicates that Lieutenant Coleman failed to order Mr. Lytle to submit a report. It does not suggest that Lieutenant Coleman, or anyone else, forbade, discouraged, or otherwise sought to prevent Mr. Lytle from filing reports that discussed the “dead or dying” comments either with Lieutenant Coleman or Chief Kitchings. Having concluded that Mr. Lytle’s interests are significantly diminished by his failure to pursue his concerns within the Department and by the lack of a reasonable factual basis for his allegations, we now consider the interests of Mr. Lytle’s employer. As explained below, we conclude that those interests are 3 Under Kansas law, second degree murder (the offense that Mr. Lytle accused the officers of committing) is defined as “the killing of a human being committed: (a) [i]ntentionally; or (b) unintentionally but recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 213402 (1995). 18 entitled to substantial weight. We first note that there is undisputed evidence that, by speaking with Mr. Berg and the press, Mr. Lytle breached general Department confidentiality rules and specific orders not to discuss the Wilson matter with persons outside the Department. See, e.g., id. vol. III at 1083-85 (recording no objections to the district court’s statement that Mr. Lytle “admitted to Mr. Berg that he was under orders not to discuss the Wilson investigation”). Moreover, the City and Chief Kitchings presented affidavits from several officers and employees demonstrating the effect of Mr. Lytle’s breach of confidentiality rule. According to these affidavits, after they learned of his statements to Mr. Berg and the press, Mr. Lytle’s coemployees no longer trusted him with confidential information regarding the Wilson investigation, or any other sensitive police matter. See id. vol. I, at 90-123. For example, they stated that, “[a]fter the allegations it seemed that no one really wanted to work with [Mr.] Lytle due to no trust,” id. at 90 (aff. of Mylain E. Anthis); that “[i]t was very hard to conduct telephone conversations with [Mr. Lytle] in the same room, in fear that I could be speaking about a case,” id. at 92 (aff. of John Coleman); and that “I no longer trusted [Mr.] Lytle--nor did his fellow officers and employees,” id. at 111 (aff. of Debbie Mann). According to these officers, this lack of trust significantly damaged department morale and made it more difficult to do their jobs. See, e.g., id. at 110 (“Morale in the 19 Department decreased significantly after [Mr.] Lytle’s statements.”), 116 (aff. of Michael McElroy) (“No one wanted to work with [Mr.] Lytle. I had to tell the officers that they had to at least be polite to him. In [l]aw [e]nforcement, officers have to work together and share information.”). This circuit has recognized the importance of confidentiality to the performance of police officers’ responsibilities. “Any breach of confidentiality . . . reflects negatively on an officer’s ability and competence to perform his job, and each officer’s competence affects the overall effectiveness of the department.” Melton, 879 F.2d at 715. Moreover, personal loyalty and confidence are especially important among police officers, who are charged with ensuring public safety and who often must work together in life-and-death situations. See Moore, 57 F.3d at 934 (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.’” quoting Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 861 (10th Cir. 1989)); Koch, 847 F.2d at 1452 n.22 (“A number of cases have emphasized the heightened governmental interest in maintaining harmony among employees in the law enforcement context.”). These concerns are even greater in a relatively small department, where a minor disturbance in morale might loom large. See Aplt’s App. vol. I, at 105 ¶¶ 4, 5 (Tr. of dep. of Chief Kitchings, dated Nov. 20, 1995) (citing a 20 Haysville police force of 15 officers and a Haysville population of approximately 8,000); see also Moore, 57 F.3d at 934 (finding that “the small size of the department increased the likelihood and severity of disruption”). Although Mr. Lytle has not contested the defendants’ evidence regarding the damaging effects of his breach of confidentiality on the Department, he does argue that these effects were not considered at the time of his dismissal. Mr. Lytle notes that Chief Kitchings did not mention the effect of the statements to Mr. Berg and the press in the letter of termination or in interviews with the news media after the discharge. See Aplt’s App. vol. III, at 1019-22 (Tr. of interview with Judy Conklin, Haysville Pioneer, dated July 17, 1991); see also id. at 964-66 (Notice of termination, dated July 16, 1991). He further notes that Chief Kitchings later testified during his deposition that it was not until after the termination that he became aware of workplace disharmony. See id. vol. I at 144 (Tr. of dep. of Chief Kitchings dated September 12, 1994), vol. III at 944-46 (Tr. of dep. of Chief Kitchings, dated Oct. 12, 1995). According to Mr. Lytle, Chief Kitchings’s failure to mention the effects of his breach of confidentiality until well after his termination precludes us from considering these effects in the Pickering balancing. We are not persuaded by this argument. In weighing the government employer’s interests, the primary consideration is the impact of the disputed 21 speech “on the effective functioning of the public employer’s enterprise.” Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388. Thus, rather than examining the explanation offered at a particular time by an individual decisionmaker such as Chief Kitchings, we must evaluate the effect of Mr. Lytle’s statements on the Department as a whole. We acknowledge that, in certain instances, a decisonmaker’s failure to mention certain adverse effects of the challenged speech may constitute some evidence those effects did not really occur or did not significantly impair the functioning of the government entity. See, e.g., Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388-89 (citing the decisionmaker’s testimony that the disruption of office functions was not a consideration when the employee was terminated in support of the conclusion that “there is no evidence that [the speech] interfered with the efficient functioning of the office”). However, the fact that an official does not mention a particular adverse effect of the challenged speech in a termination letter or in various other statements concerning the challenged employment action does not necessarily preclude the government employer from invoking such an effect in articulating its interests under the Pickering inquiry. In the instant case, Chief Kitchings’s failure to specifically mention the effects of Mr. Lytle’s breach of confidentiality rules on Department morale and efficiency does not diminish the weight we afford these effects in the Pickering inquiry. As we have noted, our decisions recognize that there is often a close 22 connection between a police department’s confidentiality rules and the morale and effective functioning of the police force. See, e.g., Melton, 879 F.2d at 714. 1989). When he terminated Mr. Lytle, Chief Kitchings did mention the confidentiality rules, and the effects on morale and efficiency documented by the Department were foreseeable results of Mr. Lytle’s violation of those rules. For all of the foregoing reasons, we believe that the Pickering balancing tips in the defendants’ favor. The only factor weighing on Mr. Lytle’s side of the scales is Mr. Lytle’s whistle blower status, and the significance of even that factor is substantially diminished by Mr. Lytle’s failure to pursue his allegations within the Department and by the unreasonableness of his beliefs about government wrongdoing. Mr. Lytle’s limited interests are far outweighed by the Department’s interest in maintaining confidentiality and avoiding workplace disruption. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on Mr. Lytle’s First Amendment claim. 4 4 Because we conclude that there was no First Amendment violation, we need not consider whether Chief is entitled to qualified immunity. See Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 28 Kitchings 4 (1980) (“[I]t is not necessary for us to decide any question concerning . . . immunity . . . because . . . [t]he first inquiry in [immunity analysis] . . . is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The answer to that inquiry disposes of this case.” (internal citations and quotations omitted). 23