Jackler v. Byrne
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15265, 658 F.3d. 225, 32 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 833 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public employee’s refusal to comply with an order to retract a truthful statement and file a false one is speech on a matter of public concern that has a civilian analogue, and is therefore protected by the First Amendment.
Facts:
- Probationary Officer Jason Jaekler assisted Sergeant Gregory Metakes in the arrest of Zachary Jones.
- After Jones was handcuffed and placed in Jaekler's patrol car, Jones called Metakes a 'dick'.
- In response, Metakes reopened the car door and struck the handcuffed Jones in the face.
- Jones filed a civilian complaint against Metakes for use of excessive force, identifying Jaekler as a witness.
- Pursuant to a departmental directive, Jaekler's superiors ordered him to file a supplementary report on the incident.
- Jaekler submitted a truthful report that corroborated Jones's allegation that Metakes struck him after he was handcuffed in the car.
- Chief Matthew Byrne and Lieutenants Paul Rickard and Patrick Freeman repeatedly ordered Jaekler to withdraw his truthful report and file a new, false report to conceal Metakes's misconduct.
- Jaekler refused to alter his report or submit a false one, leading his superiors to recommend his termination with false information about his job performance, which the Board of Police Commissioners then carried out.
Procedural Posture:
- Jason Jaekler sued Chief Matthew Byrne and other officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation.
- Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
- The district court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that Jaekler's speech was made pursuant to his official duties and was therefore unprotected under Garcetti v. Ceballos.
- Jaekler, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 terminating a probationary police officer in retaliation for his refusal to withdraw a truthful report about another officer's use of excessive force and file a false one violate the officer's First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Kearse
Yes, terminating the officer for refusing to file a false report violates his First Amendment rights. While speech made pursuant to a public employee's official duties is generally not protected under Garcetti v. Ceballos, an employee's refusal to retract a truthful statement and make a false one is distinct. This refusal has a 'civilian analogue' because any citizen has a First Amendment right to refuse to make false statements to law enforcement and would face criminal liability for doing so. The subject matter—police misconduct—is of significant public concern. The government's interest in operational efficiency does not outweigh the employee's First Amendment right, as coercing employees to lie and cover up wrongdoing undermines the integrity and proper functioning of the department.
Concurring - Judge Sack
Yes. The concurring opinion agrees fully with the majority but adds that while the First Amendment protects both the right to speak and the right not to speak, compelled speech may warrant even greater constitutional scrutiny than compelled silence. Forcing an individual to actively affirm a falsehood, as was demanded of Jaekler, is a particularly egregious infringement on the 'sphere of intellect and spirit' protected by the First Amendment. Historical examples like the Soviet purge trials and Galileo's recantation illustrate that compelling a false affirmation is an especially severe form of constitutional violation.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a crucial clarification to the rule from Garcetti v. Ceballos, which limited First Amendment protections for public employee speech made pursuant to official duties. The court distinguishes between making a report as a job duty and refusing an unlawful order to falsify that report. By finding that the refusal to lie has a 'civilian analogue,' the court protects public employees who resist participating in official cover-ups. This precedent strengthens protections for whistleblowers and reinforces that a public employer's authority does not extend to compelling employees to commit unlawful acts like filing false reports.
