Stanley Mason worked as a police officer with the City of Waco, Texas Police Department for about 25 years until his resignation in 2019. Beginning in 2016, he hosted a Facebook Live broadcast, and later a radio blog, called “Behind the Blue Curtain,” covering topics related to policing. In June 2016, another police officer complained to the Department that Mason posted a video online, in which he wore his police uniform, and called police officers “executioners.” Then-Assistant Police Chief Ryan Holt initiated an investigation into Mason, which ultimately determined that the complaints against him were unfounded, and he was neither sanctioned nor disciplined as a result. According to Mason, he was investigated three times by the Department and never received formal discipline.
Mason alleged that the Department took informal, adverse actions against him following the investigation. Mason claimed that once he began broadcasting his blog, his fellow officers became much slower to provide backup. Mason cited one example where he had to wait more than 30 minutes for backup when responding to a domestic violence call. Mason also claimed that the Department failed to timely report that an arrestee had threatened his life. Holt would later testify that he immediately investigated when he learned of this incident, which resulted in the responsible officer’s discipline and apology.
Over a year after resigning from the Department, Mason sued the City for violating his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by retaliating against him for his blog. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, and Mason appealed.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. As Mason only submitted briefs on his First Amendment claim, the Court did not consider his other claims. To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation action, Mason had to prove (1) he suffered an adverse employment action; (2) he spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern; (3) his interest in the speech outweighed the government’s interest in the efficient provision of public services; and (4) the speech precipitated the adverse employment action. The Court found that Mason failed to prove the first element of the test.
Since there was no dispute that Mason was not fired, demoted, reprimanded, or sanctioned by the Department, his alleged adverse employment action was a constructive discharge. “To establish constructive discharge, a plaintiff ‘must offer evidence that the employer made the employee’s working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign.’” Mason’s allegations, if proven, were simply not enough to meet this standard.
The Court noted that Mason’s alleged evidence of his intolerable working conditions were: (1) his three investigations in response to a fellow officer’s complaint about his blog; (2) slow backup responses by his fellow officers; and (3) a belatedly-reported death threat. The Court found that the investigations themselves would not push a reasonable employee to resign because they did not result in any discipline, and they were a reasonable response by the Department to allegations that Mason was improperly wearing his police uniform while commenting on police issues. As Mason failed to provide any evidence that slow backup times ever put him in physical danger, this allegation was not enough to constitute constructive discharge. Finally, the record showed that the Department did respond appropriately to the death threat by immediately investigating and disciplining the responsible officer.
Put simply by the Court: “A reasonable jury could not conclude that these events collectively created an environment so intolerable that a reasonable police officer in Mason’s position would have felt compelled to resign. As such, no genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether Mason suffered an adverse employment action, so Mason’s First Amendment claim fails.”
Mason v. City of Waco, No. 23-50108, 2024 WL 775508 (5th Cir., 2024).