Heffernan v. City of Paterson
194 L. Ed. 2d 508, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 2924, 136 S. Ct. 1412 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a public employer takes adverse action against an employee based on a mistaken belief that the employee engaged in constitutionally protected political activity, the employee has a valid First Amendment claim. The employer's motive, not the employee's actual conduct, is the dispositive factor.
Facts:
- Jeffrey Heffernan was a police officer in Paterson, New Jersey, working in the office of the Chief of Police, who had been appointed by the incumbent mayor, Jose Torres.
- During a mayoral election, Torres was running against a challenger, Lawrence Spagnola, who was a good friend of Heffernan.
- Heffernan's bedridden mother asked him to pick up a large campaign sign for Spagnola to replace one that was stolen from her yard.
- Heffernan, while off-duty, went to a Spagnola campaign distribution point to pick up the sign.
- While there, other police officers saw Heffernan holding the sign and speaking with Spagnola's campaign staff.
- Word quickly spread through the police department that Heffernan was supporting the challenger's campaign.
- The next day, Heffernan's supervisors demoted him from detective to patrol officer as punishment for what they perceived as his 'overt involvement' in Spagnola's campaign.
- In reality, Heffernan was not involved in the campaign and was only helping his mother.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey Heffernan filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against his supervisors and the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Heffernan had no First Amendment claim because he had not engaged in any protected conduct.
- Heffernan (appellant) appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that a free-speech retaliation claim requires the employee's 'actual, rather than perceived, exercise of constitutional rights.'
- Heffernan (petitioner) then successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a government employer's demotion of an employee, based on a mistaken belief that the employee engaged in protected political speech, violate the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes. A government employer violates the First Amendment when it demotes an employee based on a mistaken belief that the employee engaged in protected political activity. The focus of the First Amendment in this context is on the government's action and motive. When an employer acts with the desire to prevent or punish what it perceives as protected political activity, it inflicts a constitutional harm, regardless of whether its perception of the employee's conduct is factually correct. This is because the demotion has a chilling effect, discouraging all employees from engaging in protected political activity for fear of similar retaliation. Citing the logic of Waters v. Churchill, the Court held that the employer's motive is what matters; the unconstitutional purpose is the basis for the claim, and the factual mistake does not excuse the government's impermissible action.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. A government employer does not violate the First Amendment because the employee did not actually exercise any constitutional right. The relevant statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides a cause of action only for the 'deprivation of any rights.' Heffernan conceded that he was not engaging in protected speech or association; therefore, no constitutional right of his was actually violated. The city's mere attempt to infringe upon his rights, which failed due to a factual mistake, is not an actionable claim. Section 1983 sounds in tort, and there is no such thing as an 'attempted tort.' An unconstitutional government policy or motive does not create a cause of action for an individual plaintiff unless that policy results in the actual infringement of that plaintiff's specific constitutional rights.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies First Amendment retaliation law for public employees by shifting the legal inquiry from the employee's actual conduct to the employer's subjective motive. It establishes that a 'perceived conduct' claim is valid, meaning an employee can sue even if they did not engage in protected activity, so long as the employer acted against them for that perceived reason. This broadens the protection for public employees against politically motivated adverse employment actions. The ruling underscores the importance of preventing a 'chilling effect' on speech, recognizing that harm occurs when the government acts with an unconstitutional purpose, regardless of the factual accuracy of its beliefs.
