Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

White police officers' suit over sergeant appointments can proceed: Court

Reprints
White police officers' suit over sergeant appointments can proceed: Court

A racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by 14 white police officers in Flint, Michigan, against the city and two supervisors in connection with the appointment of black provisional sergeants can proceed, says an appeals court.

In 2011 and 2012, the Flint police department promoted some patrol officers to the rank of sergeant on a provisional basis, according to Friday's ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Robert Garceau et al. v. City of Flint et al.

To determine whether those provisional sergeants should stay on permanently, the department administered a test. Some of the provisional sergeants, who are African-Americans, did not pass the test, but the department allowed them to stay on as provisional sergeants anyway, according to the ruling.

“The plaintiffs, all Caucasian, saw these provisional promotions as part of a pattern designed to skirt the department's internal rules (requiring seniority-based promotions) and to favor African-Americans” according to the ruling.

The plaintiffs charge that after raising their concerns with the department, police Chief Alvin Lock and police Capt. Darryl Patterson harassed and retaliated against them through increased scrutiny and “pretextual discipline” in violation of their First and 14th Amendment rights, according to the ruling. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression, while the 14th guarantees equal protection under the law.

The plaintiffs filed suit against the city, Chief Lock and Capt. Patterson in U.S. District Court in Detroit on charges including racial discrimination and retaliation.

While the District Court dismissed some of the counts, including a conspiracy count and two retaliation counts, for failure to state a claim, it allowed one of the First Amendment retaliation claims against Chief Lock and Capt. Patterson, based on their actions after the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, to proceed, and held the claim against the city could proceed as well.

The plaintiffs appealed, but a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit upheld the lower court's ruling. On the case filed against the supervisors, the ruling says the complaint alleges discrimination on the basis of race. “The First Amendment thus protects the plaintiffs' complaint,” the ruling states.

Regarding the complaint against the city, the complaint “contains sufficient factual material to raise a 'plausible' inference that the defendants maintained a policy or custom that led to discrimination and retaliation,” said the panel, in affirming the lower court ruling.

Read Next