by: JENNIFER PELTZ ,
Associated Press
NEW YORK — A police officer who
said he was punished for complaining about arrest quotas got his lawsuit
reinstated Thursday after an appeals court said his criticisms were covered by
free speech protections.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals overturned a lower court's decision dismissing Officer Craig Matthews'
suit, marking the second time the case has been thrown out and revived on
appeal. The courts have yet to rule on the merits of Matthews' suit — so far,
the legal fight has centered on the extent of his First Amendment rights as a
government worker.
The New York Civil Liberties
Union, which represented Matthews, hailed the ruling as a victory for such
employees' free speech protections.
"Today's decision protects
the ability of police officers to speak out against this kind of misconduct
when they see it," associate legal director Christopher Dunn said in a
statement. "New York City's finest should be applauded when they expose
abuse, not abused and retaliated against."
The city Law Department said it
was reviewing the decision.
The New York Police Department
has said it doesn't have arrest or summons quotas.
Matthews' suit said his Bronx
precinct did have arrest quotas, supervisors kept color-coded records of who
met them and officers were punished when they fell short. Matthews said he was
harassed and got bad evaluations and assignments when he objected, the suit
said.
A trial court judge ruled last
year that Matthews' complaints were not constitutionally protected because he
spoke as an NYPD employee in the course of doing his job, not as a citizen. The
Supreme Court has allowed some limits on public workers' speech rights, saying
that government couldn't function if every workplace decision could become a
First Amendment case.
The city argued that Matthews'
criticisms stemmed from his official duties and so weren't protected speech.
Appeals judges disagreed,
noting that the officer had no role in setting or giving feedback on police
policy.
"Matthews's speech to the
precinct's leadership in this case was not what he was 'employed to do,'"
the judges wrote. "He spoke as a citizen."
The ruling positions the case
to return to a trial court for further proceedings.
