Herdegen v. City of Los Angeles
Plaintiff, an officer recruit with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), was discharged for insubordination. Specifically, he advised other officer recruits to consult with the police union about a personnel document they did not understand, contrary to the instructions of a superior officer to sign and turn in the document at the end of class. Plaintiff challenged his discharge administratively and lost.
He then filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the trial court, arguing that his advice was protected by the First Amendment, entitling him to reinstatement. The trial court agreed that the First Amendment applied, but ruled that reinstatement was not an available remedy because plaintiff was a probationary, not a tenured, officer. Court conclude that the First Amendment afforded no protection here. The personnel document was distributed during a training class, and the officer recruits were directed to sign and return it. During a class break, some of the recruits asked plaintiff about the document. He had not received or read it because it did not apply to him; he did not discuss its substance with the recruits; and he advised them not to sign or turn it in but to consult with the police union if they did not understand it. Because such general advice absent any statement of opinion about the underlying subject matter did not address a matter of public concern, plaintiffs speech did not warrant First Amendment protection. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the petition, and Court affirm.
Comments on Herdegen v. City of Los Angeles