This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Retaliation
42 USC Section 1983

Frank Caruso v. City of Irvine, David L. Maggard Jr., Robert Richardson, and Does 1 through 10 inclusive

Published: Dec. 13, 2008 | Result Date: Aug. 20, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 8:07-cv-00011-DOC RNB Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven J. Brock

Michael A. McGill


Defendant

Jennifer M. Rosner
(Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore)

J. Scott Tiedemann
(Liebert Cassidy Whitmore)


Facts

Plaintiff Frank Caruso was a police officer for the city of Irvine since 2001. In 2006, plaintiff applied for a field training officer position (FTO) twice. He was denied both times.

Caruso sued the city of Irvine, Chief of Police David Maggard and Field Training Officer Lieutenant Robert Richardson alleging retaliation pursuant to 42 USC section 1983 and the First Amendment.

The city of Irvine was later dismissed from the lawsuit.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that because he was a vocal and active member of the Irvine Police Association in regards to officer morale issues and employment conditions, he was passed over for the FTO position.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants claimed that they did not take any adverse action against plaintiff because of his association activities. Moreover, defendants could not be held liable because they were not direct participants in the decision to not select plaintiff for the FTO assignment. Finally, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Result

Defendants were granted summary judgment.

Other Information

Court awarded $9055.45 in costs to defendants.


#121985

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390