Lalowski v. City of Des Plaines

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that plaintiff-police officer was terminated in retaliation for his protected speech arising out of incident in which plaintiff confronted protesters in front of abortion clinic. Record showed that defendant had received report that plaintiff used harsh and profane language when questioning protesters’ use of signs in front of clinic, and Ct. found that under Pickering test, none of his statements made during instant confrontation was protected under First Amendment, where his statements to protesters: (1) had potential to create problems in maintaining discipline in police force; (2) had potential for disruption within police force; (3) conflicted with plaintiff’s responsibility of fostering trust and respect with public; and (4) were unjustified in terms of manner in which they were uttered. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s claim for administrative review of his termination, where plaintiff had never been given opportunity to brief said claim.