Zachary Leonard was hired as a police officer in Burkburnett, Texas in 2005. He was a founding member of the Burkburnett Police Association and served multiple terms as an executive board member. In 2018, the Association identified morale issues and problems of leadership in the police department. Leonard was the primary advocate to gain civil service protection for the City’s police department employees. City leadership opposed this measure, and Leonard alleged that Association members faced threats of shift changes and demotions.
In December 2018, in the midst of public debate of the civil service issue, Leonard participated in an alumni soccer game at a high school. During the game, Leonard collided with a teenager, causing him injuries. The teenager’s parents filed a complaint with the police department, which notified Leonard that he would be subject to an internal and criminal investigation. Leonard was terminated in April 2019, allegedly due to the soccer incident. According to Leonard, the City conducted no investigation, completed no interviews, and reviewed no evidence prior to firing him. Leonard unsuccessfully appealed his termination.
In March 2021, Leonard sued the City and several members of City leadership alleging, among other things, that he was terminated in retaliation for his First Amendment rights under the Texas constitution for pursuing civil service protection for City police officers. The trial court dismissed all of Leonard’s claims, and he appealed.
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of his First Amendment claims. To adequately state such a claim, Leonard had to establish that (1) he suffered an adverse employment decision; (2) his exercise of the right to free speech or assembly involved a matter of public concern; (3) his interest in exercising that right outweighed the employer’s interest in promoting efficiency; and (4) his exercise of that right motivated the adverse employment decision. The critical element before the Court was whether Leonard’s speech involved a matter of public concern. Leonard’s complaint specifically provided that his and the Association’s speech and activities about “an election over civil service protection for police employees of the City were of significant public concern.” Therefore, this point was adequately pled, and the trial court improperly dismissed this claim.
The Court went on to reject the City’s argument that Leonard failed to establish element (3), because “it is the governmental entity’s burden to show that a particular discharge was justified in light of the nature of the expression itself and the entity’s interest in effectively and efficiently fulfilling its public responsibility.” Since the City fundamentally rejected Leonard’s claim that he was terminated for his involvement in the civil service campaign and did not attempt to justify his discharge on this ground, the Court had no reason to deviate from its requirement to accept Leonard’s factual allegations as true. In other words, the Court appeared to accept that Leonard implicitly established element (3), and the City offered no reason for the Court to change its mind. The Court remanded the case to the trial court to proceed on the first amendment retaliation charge.
Leonard v. City of Burkburnett, No. 02-22-00266-CV, 2023 WL 7210339 (Tex. Ct. App., 2023).