Foraker v. Chaffinch
| Decision Date | 30 August 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-4086.,06-4086. |
| Parties | *Sergeant Christopher D. FORAKER, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Delaware State Police v. Colonel L. Aaron CHAFFINCH; Lieutenant Colonel Thomas F. MacLeish, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Superintendent of the Delaware State Police; David B. Mitchell, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Safety and Homeland Security of the State of Delaware; Division of State Police Department of Safety and Homeland Security State of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-01207) Corporal B. Kurt Price; Corporal Wayne Warren *Sergeant Christopher D. Foraker v. Colonel L. Aaron Chaffinch, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Delaware State Police; Lieutenant Colonel Thomas F. MacLeish, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Superintendent of the Delaware State Police; David B. Mitchell, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Safety and Homeland Security of the State of Delaware; Division of State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security, State of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-00956) B. Kurt Price, Wayne Warren, *Christopher D. Foraker, Appellants. *Dismissed Per the Court's Order of 11/7/06 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Martin D. Haverly, Thomas S. Neuberger, Stephen J. Neuberger (argued), The Neuberger Firm, Wilmington, DE, for Appellants.
Edward T. Ellis (argued), Carmon M. Harvey, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees.
Before: SMITH and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK, District Judge.*
Appellants Corporal B. Kurt Price and Corporal Wayne Warren, both former Delaware State Troopers and instructors in the Delaware State Police Firearms Training Unit, appeal from the District Court's grant of judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). Price and Warren present two principal issues for review: (1) whether the activities they engaged in were protected by the Petition Clause, and (2) whether their speech is protected after the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
The origins of this case date to September 1998, when the Delaware State Police ("DSP") opened an indoor firing range in Smyrna, Delaware. The range became the locus of operations for the Firearms Training Unit ("FTU"), the unit to which Price and Warren were assigned as instructors during the time period relevant to this case. The range and those who used it encountered a number of difficulties from the outset, including problems with the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ("HVAC") system.
Price and Warren were long-term members of the DSP at the time of the events giving rise to this case. Price had been part of the FTU since 1996 and Warren had been assigned to the unit in 2001. Sergeant Christopher Foraker was the Section Chief of the FTU from August 1, 2001 through April 8, 2002, at which point he was moved to another unit. Foraker sued Colonel L. Aaron Chaffinch on April 24, 2002 for First Amendment retaliation, and won a jury verdict in his favor. The parties later agreed that Foraker would be reinstated to his position with the FTU and that the monetary judgment against Chaffinch would be vacated. Foraker returned to the firing range on December 1, 2003.
Price, Warren, and Foraker considered the range conditions intolerable, and were specifically concerned with health and safety issues there. The HVAC system did not work properly, the bullet trap was malfunctioning, and officers and students at the range were suffering the physical manifestations of contamination, including elevated levels of heavy metals in their blood. Foraker sent a number of e-mails regarding the deteriorating conditions at the range to his superiors, including Lieutenant Colonel Thomas F. MacLeish, Captain Greg Warren, and Lieutenant Ralph Davis. In an e-mail dated December 19, 2003 he explained that, due to a broken drive chain and damaged sprocket on the conveyor, the dredging system had been brought to a complete stop. He also outlined concerns about Price's and Warren's elevated blood levels.
In early December, Price, Warren, and Foraker decided to suspend certain bullet trap maintenance because they considered carrying it out to be unsafe. At trial, Warren explained that their objective was to limit their exposure to lead and other unsafe metals. They continued to perform other forms of range maintenance, including removal of spent casings and trash. The three men had meetings to discuss the range with MacLeish, Captain Greg Warren, and the Division of Facilities Management. In March 2004, the DSP closed the range.
Following the closing of the range, the State Auditor reviewed the issues surrounding the closing. Price, Warren, and Foraker met with the Auditor on May 12, 2004. Their attorney later read their statements to the Auditor, verbatim, to the Delaware State News, a local newspaper. As troopers, Price, Warren, and Foraker were not permitted to speak to the press without the approval of superior officers. On May 13, 2004, they were ordered to submit to a hearing examination to determine whether they were fit for duty. On June 25, 2004, Price and Warren were placed on light duty. On August 19, 2004, Price, Warren, and Foraker filed this action.1 Price, Warren, and Foraker amended their complaint on October 14, 2005 to include the two counts at issue here. Count One of the amended complaint alleged a violation of the plaintiffs' Free Speech rights, and Count Two alleged Petition Clause violations. Price and Warren retired from the DSP on April 7, 2006.
During discovery, Price, Warren, and Foraker sought to discover e-mail messages stored on Chaffinch's hard drive. Chaffinch retired in May 2005. Pursuant to routine DSP procedure, a technician at the DSP re-imaged the hard drive, destroying any messages saved there. The plaintiffs requested default judgment or an adverse inference instruction on the basis of spoliation of evidence. The District Court denied both motions.
Trial began on May 15, 2006. The District Court charged the jury on May 30, 2006, the same day that the Supreme Court decided Garcetti v. Ceballos. The next day, the jury returned a verdict for Price, Warren, and Foraker.
After the District Court entered judgment on the verdict for Price, Warren, and Foraker, appellees Chaffinch, MacLeish, David Mitchell, and the DSP ("DSP defendants") moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). On August 14, 2006, 2006 WL 2346430, the District Court granted the motion. The Court held that the First Amendment Speech and Petition Clauses did not protect Price and Warren because their reports up the DSP chain of command and statements to the Auditor were part of their official duties as Troopers and they had been ordered to cooperate. The Court denied the motion of Price, Warren, and Foraker to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence at trial under Rule 15(b). Foraker settled with the DSP defendants shortly after the filing of this appeal, and the District Court entered an order of dismissal of his claims on October 11, 2006.
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the grant of a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law. DiBella v. Borough of Beachwood, 407 F.3d 599, 601 (3d Cir.2005). In evaluating the grant of judgment as a matter of law, "we must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to . . . the verdict winner[s], and draw all reasonable inferences in [their] favor." Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1072 (3d Cir.1996). In Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Cir.1993), we explained that "although the court draws all reasonable and logical inferences in the nonmovant's favor, we must affirm an order granting judgment as a matter of law if, upon review of the record, it is apparent that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence." Id. at 1166.
Price and Warren assert that their actions in bringing the problems at the firing range to the attention of the government constitute protected petitioning activity under the First Amendment. In their amended complaint, they alleged that they suffered adverse employment action as a result of their petitions to the government for redress of grievances. The Petition Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." U.S. CONST. amend. I, cl. 6. The first question for our review is whether Price and Warren's expressions are petitions within the meaning of the First Amendment.
The history of the Petition Clause is instructive. Petitions were first utilized in America during the colonial era, when colonists petitioned the colonial assemblies for resolution of private disputes as well as for legislative action. See Stephen A. Higginson, Note, A Short History of the Right to Petition Government for the Redress of Grievances, 96 YALE L.J. 142, 144-55 (1986). By the time the Framers penned the First Amendment and the states ratified the right of people to petition the government, petitioning was already a firmly established—and highly valued — right in the common law tradition, and one that included the right to governmental consideration of the petition. See id. at 155-56 & n. 92 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.L.D. v. Eedward V. Gannon, the N.J. Judiciary, N.J., Dorsey Samaru LLC
...reporting instances of potential misconduct of subordinates to his superiors was within his official job duties); Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d 231, 240 (3d Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Borough of Duryea, Pa. v. Guamieri, 131 S. Ct. 2488 (2011) ("Price and Warren were acting w......
-
Homel v. Centennial Sch. Dist.
...presents a mixed question of law and fact. Reilly v. City of Atl. City, 532 F.3d 216, 227 (3d Cir.2008) (quoting Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d 231, 240 (3d Cir.2007)). Homel argues that her statements to Miller are protected because she was speaking not as assistant superintendent, but as ......
-
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
...even if the petition concerns a matter of solely private concern.’ " 364 Fed.Appx. 749, 753 (C.A.3 2010) (quoting Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d 231, 236 (C.A.3 2007) ). The decision of the Court of Appeals was consistent with the rule adopted and explained by that court in San Filippo v. B......
-
Schumann v. Dianon Sys., Inc.
...2009); Chaklos v. Stevens, 560 F.3d 705, 712 (7th Cir. 2009); Curran v. Cousins, 509 F.3d 36, 44-45 (1st Cir. 2007); Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d 231, 243 (3d Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Duryea v. Guar-nieri, U.S. , 131 S. Ct. 2488, 180 L. Ed. 2d 408 (2011); Davison v. Minne......
-
Circuit Court interpretations of Garcetti v. Ceballos and the development of public employee speech.
...526 F.3d 1040, 1044 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding neither location, audience, nor subject matter to be determinative); Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d 231, 241 n.7 (3d Cir. 2007) ("[T]he fact that an employee speaks privately is not conclusive...."), abrogated by Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 1......
-
The Supreme Court in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri Signals a Retreat from Pre's Broad Deference to the Right to Petition
...S. Ct. at 2493 (quoting Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 364 Fed. Appx. 749, 753 (3rd Cir. 2010)) (in turn quoting Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d 231, 236 (3rd Cir. 2007)).69. Id. at 2491.70. Id. at 2500. The Court emphasized that government employees often have statutory and regulatory prot......