IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 19, 2007
No. 07-20162 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
THOMAS P NIXON
Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
CITY OF HOUSTON; HAROLD HURTT
Defendants–Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CV-296
Before GARWOOD, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:
On January 27, 2006, Thomas Nixon, a patrol officer with the Houston,
Texas Police Department (“HPD”), filed a § 1983 suit against the City of Houston
and Chief of Police Harold Hurtt (“Appellees”) for employment retaliation in
violation of his First Amendment right to free speech. Specifically, Nixon claims
that his fifteen-day temporary suspension and his later indefinite suspension
(“termination”)1 from HPD for making various statements during media
interviews and in publications he authored violated his First Amendment rights.
1
The parties agree that Nixon’s indefinite suspension was effectively a termination
from his position as an HPD officer.
No. 07-20162
In this appeal, Nixon seeks a reversal of the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Appellees. Because we find that Nixon’s speech
was not protected by the First Amendment, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Nixon’s “The Insider” Articles
Between May 2004 and January 2006, Nixon wrote a monthly column
entitled “The Insider” in 002 Magazine, a local Houston periodical.2 In such
articles, Nixon identified himself as a police officer, discussed his police-related
activities, commented on his duties as an officer and HPD policies,
and–according to HPD–made “caustic, offensive, and disrespectful” statements
regarding certain groups of citizens, including minorities, women, and the
homeless.
HPD eventually received a citizen complaint about Nixon’s articles.3
Thereafter, on or about September 28, 2005, HPD initiated an Internal Affairs
investigation to determine if Nixon and his articles violated any HPD policies.
The investigation determined that Nixon’s activities related to authoring and
publishing the articles violated numerous HPD policies and undermined the
efficiency of the services provided by HPD. Consequently, HPD temporarily
suspended Nixon for fifteen days without pay beginning on February 1, 2006.
B. Nixon’s January 2006 Media Statements
On January 18, 2006, there was a highly publicized high-speed police
pursuit involving state and local law enforcement officers, including HPD
officers, and a fleeing suspect. After the fleeing suspect had been identified,
HPD supervisors ordered all HPD officers to discontinue the pursuit but
2
It is undisputed that Nixon did not request or receive authorization to write articles
in 002 Magazine.
3
In the complaint, the citizen questioned whether HPD shared and/or condoned the
views expressed in the article and whether the author could properly fulfill the duties of an
HPD officer.
2
No. 07-20162
permitted them to follow at a distance. Nonetheless, the fleeing suspect
eventually collided with an innocent motorist. Although Nixon was not involved
in the pursuit, he knew about it from local television reports he saw while he
was off-duty, at home, and preparing for his shift.
As soon as his shift started, Nixon proceeded to the scene of the
accident–even though he was never instructed to do so.4 Upon arriving, Nixon
asked a supervisor if anyone was going to make a statement to the media and
suggested that he (Nixon) do so. After the supervisor failed to respond (other
than by laughing), Nixon proceeded to speak to the media. Nixon, however, was
not designated as an HPD spokesperson and was not authorized to make
statements to the media at the scene. In his statement, Nixon criticized HPD’s
decision to disengage the pursuit and stated he was “embarrassed to be a police
officer” because the department did not stop fleeing suspects.
The next day, on January 19, 2006, Nixon continued his criticism of HPD
and its pursuit policy by voluntarily calling into multiple radio talk shows and
by giving television interviews.5 After his remarks on both days, Nixon informed
the HPD media relations office that he had spoken to the media, presumably in
an attempt to comply with his employer’s media policy.
In response to these statements, HPD launched an investigation against
Nixon. On June 2, 2006, HPD terminated Nixon’s employment.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
4
In going to the scene of the accident, Nixon did not inform the dispatcher when he left
his vehicle and failed to timely respond to the dispatcher’s call for assistance in another matter.
5
During one of these interviews, Nixon recounted a prior incident in which he had
violated HPD’s pursuit policy, stating: “[I]t was a violation of policy and I admit that I did it,
but you know what, I’m glad I did it because it prevented an innocent person from being
injured . . . .”
3
No. 07-20162
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
applying the same standard as the district court. Atkins v. Hibernia Corp., 182
F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate when the
record establishes “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
III. DISCUSSION
To establish a § 1983 claim for employment retaliation related to speech,
a plaintiff-employee must show: (1) he suffered “an adverse employment action,”
Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004); (2) he spoke “as a citizen
on a matter of public concern,” Garcetti v. Ceballos, – U.S. –, 126 S. Ct. 1951,
1958 (2006); (3) his interest in the speech outweighs the government’s interest
in the efficient provision of public services, Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S.
563, 568 (1968); and (4) the speech “precipitated the adverse employment
action.” Eeds, 392 F.3d at 142.
In the case at hand, neither party disputes that Nixon’s fifteen-day
suspension and later termination constituted adverse employment actions or
that his speech precipitated the adverse employment actions. Thus, we must
determine: (1) whether–under Garcetti–Nixon was speaking in his role as an
employee or as a citizen on a matter of public concern, and (2) if he was speaking
as a citizen, whether–under Pickering–his interest in speaking outweighed the
government’s interest in efficiency.
Under Garcetti, for an employee’s speech to qualify for First Amendment
protection, he must be speaking “as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” 126
S. Ct. at 1958 (emphasis added). An employee is not speaking as a citizen–but
rather in his role as an employee–when he “make[s] statements pursuant to [his]
official duties.” Id. at 1960. (“Restricting speech that owes its existence to a
public employee’s professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the
employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen.”). Garcetti, however, “did not
4
No. 07-20162
explicate what it means to speak ‘pursuant to’ one’s ‘official duties.’” Williams
v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 480 F.3d 689, 692 (5th Cir. 2007).
In Williams, the Fifth Circuit defined when an employee is speaking
pursuant to his “official duties.” Id. at 693-94. This Court first noted that “a
formal job description is not dispositive, . . . nor is speaking on the subject
matter of one’s employment.” Id. at 692 (citing Garcetti, 126 S. Ct. at 1959,
1961). The Court went on to state that speech required by one’s position as an
employee is not protected by the First Amendment.6 Williams, 480 F.3d at 693.
However, because the speech at issue in Williams was not required by Williams’s
job responsibilities, the Court went on to “determine the extent to which, under
Garcetti, a public employee is protected by the First Amendment if his speech is
not necessarily required by his job duties but nevertheless is related to his job
duties.” Id. (emphasis added). This Court ultimately concluded that “[a]ctivities
undertaken in the course of performing one’s job are activities pursuant to
official duties.” Id.
If a court determines that an employee is not speaking in his/her role as
an employee, but rather as a citizen on a matter of public concern, “the
possibility of a First Amendment claim arises.” Garcetti, 126 S. Ct. at 1958. To
determine whether the First Amendment protects the employee’s speech, a court
proceeds to the Pickering balancing test and determines whether the interest of
the government employer “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it
performs through its employees” outweighs the employee’s interests, as a citizen,
“in commenting upon matters of public concern.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568.
6
This Court came to this conclusion because we found that job-required duties were
present in Garcetti–i.e., that Ceballos’s responsibilities as a prosecutor and calendar deputy
required him to make the speech at issue. Williams, 480 F.3d at 693 (“[W]hen Ceballos
articulated his opinion about a case in a memorandum to his supervisor, alleging that the
police acted inappropriately in gathering evidence, he did exactly what he was required to
do.”).
5
No. 07-20162
Pertinent considerations in this balancing test are “whether the statement
impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental
impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence
are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes
with the regular operation of the enterprise.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S.
378, 388 (1987). Furthermore, “[b]ecause police departments function as
paramilitary organizations charged with maintaining public safety and order,
they are given more latitude in their decisions regarding discipline and
personnel regulations than an ordinary government employer.” Tindle v.
Caudell, 56 F.3d 966, 971 (8th Cir. 1995).
With this framework in mind, we turn to the speech at issue in this case:
Nixon’s January 2006 media statements and Nixon’s “The Insider” magazine
articles.
A. Nixon’s January 2006 Media Statements
Under Garcetti and Williams, it is clear that Nixon’s January 18, 2006
media statement at the scene of the accident is not protected by the First
Amendment because it was made pursuant to his official duties and during the
course of performing his job. Nixon spoke to the media while on duty, in
uniform, and while working at the scene of the accident. Before he made the
statement, he made an attempt to get the approval of a supervisor to do so. His
statement was intended to inform the public of the circumstances of the high-
speed chase, the subsequent accident, and HPD’s high-speed chase policy. Quite
simply, there is “no relevant analogue to speech by citizens.” Garcetti, 126 S. Ct.
at 1961. The fact that Nixon’s statement was unauthorized by HPD and that
speaking to the press was not part of his regular job duties is not
dispositive–Nixon’s statement was made while he was performing his job, and
the fact that Nixon performed his job incorrectly, in an unauthorized manner,
or in contravention of the wishes of his superiors does not convert his statement
6
No. 07-20162
at the accident scene into protected citizen speech. Furthermore, speaking with
the media is arguably one of an officer’s job responsibilities, as HPD’s Media
Relations Policy directs: “In emergency or scene related situations, officers will
provide the media with information regarding the scene or event in a timely
manner.”7
Nixon’s January 19 statements to various radio talk shows and television
news programs–considered in isolation–more closely approximate citizen speech,
as he was presumably off-duty when he made such statements. These
statements, however, constitute a continuation of Nixon’s accident-scene
statements the previous day criticizing HPD and its high-speed pursuit
policy–which, as discussed above, Nixon made in his role as an employee.
Consequently, this next-day forum should not affect our analysis, and these
statements are seemingly controlled by Garcetti. However, even if Nixon’s
January 19 media statements constitute citizen speech, such speech–in
conjunction with his January 18 statements–is not afforded First Amendment
protection under Pickering.
Nixon’s interest in commenting upon matters of public concern–although
significant–are outweighed by the government’s substantial interests in the
efficient provision of government services. Nixon’s 2006 media statements
undermined HPD’s interests in maintaining discipline and order among
employees and in promoting and maintaining public confidence in HPD. Nixon
posed as an official HPD spokesperson at the scene of an accident and criticized
HPD’s handling of the high-speed pursuit at issue. Furthermore, in his January
19 media interviews, Nixon stated that he had knowingly disobeyed HPD’s
pursuit policy on a prior occasion and felt comfortable violating other direct
orders because he has “civil service protection.” Such statements and conduct
7
It is also relevant that Nixon complied with this policy by notifying the media relations
office of his statement at the accident scene after he made it.
7
No. 07-20162
smack of insubordination, and it is entirely reasonable for HPD to predict that
such insubordination and likely acts of future insubordination would harm
HPD’s ability to maintain discipline and order in the department, morale within
the department, and close-working relationships between Nixon, his fellow
officers, and his supervisors.8 Furthermore, HPD could reasonably predict that
an officer criticizing HPD policy while masking as an official spokesperson at the
scene of an accident and discussing his past violations of HPD policy and future
willingness to violate such policies would bring the mission of HPD and the
professionalism of its officers into disrepute.
B. Nixon’s “The Insider” Articles
Nixon contends that the district court erred in determining that, under
Garcetti, he was not speaking as a citizen when he wrote his articles for 002
Magazine because: (1) writing the articles was not part of his job-required duties,
(2) his speech occurred outside the scope of his employment and without any
authorization, and (3) his comments were directed to the general public and
constituted speech that private citizens could perform. Appellees, on the other
hand, contend that Nixon was speaking in his role as an officer when he penned
his articles because the magazine articles were directly related to and stemmed
from his employment, his views were based upon his experiences as an HPD
officer, and he took deliberate steps to link his views to his position as a police
officer by identifying himself as an active HPD patrolman. However, we need
8
Nixon complains that “HPD failed to produce any evidence . . . that [any of] Nixon's
speech caused actual harm, and not just speculative or threatened harm, to the effective and
efficient operations of the Department.” (emphasis added). However, a government employer
need not produce evidence of actual harm or disruption to governmental operations. Connick
v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 152 (1983) (“[W]e do not see the necessity for an employer to allow
events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working
relationships is manifest before taking action.”). Consequently, courts have consistently given
“substantial weight to government employers' reasonable predictions of disruption, even when
the speech involved is on a matter of public concern.” Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 673
(1994) (emphasis added).
8
No. 07-20162
not determine if Nixon’s magazine articles were written in his role as an
employee or citizen because, even if we assume that Nixon was speaking as a
citizen on matters of public concern, his magazine articles are unprotected by the
First Amendment under Pickering.
HPD argues that Nixon’s magazine articles “[held] HPD out to
embarrassment and serve[d] to undermine public confidence in the
professionalism of the department and its officers,” thereby interfering with the
efficient operations of HPD. Given that Nixon identified himself as an HPD
police officer and wrote from the perspective of an HPD police officer, and the
articles made patently offensive and insensitive comments regarding certain
segments of the population,9 it was reasonable for HPD to believe that such
comments and the continuation of the publication of similar articles would
hinder the important relationship between HPD and the citizens of Houston. In
fact, Nixon’s articles drew the attention of another local publication, Houston
Press. The article in Houston Press identified Nixon as veteran officer of the
HPD and commented that Nixon’s articles “offer[] . . . an inside look at what
HPD folks are thinking.” The article also comments on Nixon’s article that
compares inner-city minority residents to “rats” and sarcastically states: “And
the relationship between HPD and minorities takes another giant step
forward.”10 HPD convincingly states that its interest in maintaining public
confidence is so important to its proper functioning because “HPD often relies
upon members of the public to provide critical information, to serve as witnesses,
9
Nixon’s articles characterized inner-city minority residents as “rats,” women with cats
as mentally unstable, homeless people as “criminals,” and children with problems as “freaks.”
10
Additionally, Nixon’s articles led a citizen to submit a complaint to HPD’s Internal
Affairs Division, in which the citizen questioned whether HPD shared and/or condoned the
views expressed in the articles and whether the author could properly fulfill the duties of an
HPD officer.
9
No. 07-20162
to respect law enforcement authority, and to provide financial support.”11 Given
the exposure of Nixon’s articles to the Houston community and the caustic
statements in some of his articles,12 it was reasonable for HPD to believe that his
articles would negatively impact the relationship between HPD and Houston
citizens and generally bring “the mission of the [police department] and the
professionalism of its officers into serious disrepute”–certainly legitimate and
substantial interests, harm to which would undoubtedly impair the proper
performance of HPD functions. City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77, 81 (2004)
(holding that the San Diego Police Department had a legitimate and substantial
interest in preventing one of its officers from selling pornographic videos of
himself on eBay where the officer appeared in uniform, performed a parody of
an officer performing indecent acts in the course of official duties, and identified
himself on eBay as a law enforcement officer).
Nixon, on the other hand, asserts the same interests in his magazine
articles as he did with respect to his January 2006 media statements–his
interest in commenting upon matters of public concern and the public’s interest
in receiving information on police protection and public safety issues. The value
of Nixon’s articles, however, is somewhat diminished by the fact that a
significant amount of his speech is directed at denigrating certain segments of
the Houston population. Although Nixon’s interests are substantial, they are
simply outweighed by the important government interests discussed above. We
11
A good relationship with the Houston community is so important that “HPD expends
considerable resources in an attempt to build and maintain public confidence and respect.”
12
Not all of Nixon’s articles contained denigrating statements aimed at segments of
Houston’s citizenry. Many of the articles were inoffensive and commented upon HPD policies
that were arguably matters of public concern. Appellees, however, complain that such articles
mischaracterized HPD policies, contained numerous misstatements of facts, and generally
undermined community trust and respect in HPD. Regardless, Nixon’s temporary suspension
was based primarily on (and would have been justified based solely on) the articles that
contained the aforementioned denigrating statements regarding the Houston citizenry.
10
No. 07-20162
view his comments deriding and insulting the community not as legitimate
criticism of police practices but as a direct blow to the relationship with the
community HPD serves, and HPD must be able to prohibit such speech if it is to
perform its function and maintain its professionalism.
We thus find that under a Pickering analysis, Nixon’s magazine articles
are not protected under the First Amendment. In so concluding, we are mindful
of the paramilitary structure of the police department and the greater latitude
given their decisions regarding discipline and personnel regulations.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
11