The opinion of the court was delivered by: LUONGO
William Hoopes, plaintiff in this civil rights action, was Chief of Police for the City of Chester from March 1977 to November 1978. He was demoted to the rank of inspector after testifying against former Chester Mayor John Nacrelli at Nacrelli's federal criminal trial on corruption charges. Hoopes is suing Nacrelli and the members of Chester City Council under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the ground that they fired him in retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights of free association and free speech, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) on the ground that they conspired to intimidate Hoopes from testifying at Nacrelli's federal criminal trial.
Defendants now move for summary judgment,
and have submitted the affidavits of Nacrelli and members of Chester City Council. Hoopes has opposed the motion, filing an affidavit of his own along with numerous exhibits which he contends reflect the conspiracy.
I. The First Amendment Claims
With respect to Hoopes' First Amendment claim, there is no question that his testimony at trial did constitute constitutionally protected speech. Hoopes also contends that his cooperation with federal investigators involved his right of free association. To justify Hoopes' demotion, defendants rely on the well-established principle that in certain circumstances an employee's public criticism of a superior, although otherwise protected, may be so injurious to the working relationship between the parties that dismissal is permissible because it is the only practical alternative.
Three cases are analogous to the instant case. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S. Ct. 1731, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1968), is the seminal case. In Pickering, a school teacher published a letter which sharply criticized members of the school board and the superintendent of schools. Certain statements in the letter were proven false. The teacher was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal violated the teacher's First Amendment rights, but in doing so made clear that under certain circumstances such a dismissal would be proper. The Court emphasized that Pickering's letter was not directed against someone with whom he had to deal on a daily basis; that it did not impede his performance in the classroom or the functioning of the school; and that Pickering's job was not one of those "positions in public employment in which the relationship between superior and subordinate is of such a personal and intimate nature that certain forms of public criticism of the superior by the subordinate would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the working relationship between them." 391 U.S. at 570, 88 S. Ct. at 1735. The Court noted that the standard to be applied in a situation where there was a close working relationship between the parties would differ significantly from the standard which was applied in Pickering. Id.
The Third Circuit has employed the general principles set forth in Pickering in two cases. In Roseman v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 520 F.2d 1364 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 921, 96 S. Ct. 1128, 47 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1976), the court upheld the dismissal of a foreign language professor for having criticized the chairman of her department in private communications with colleagues and the dean. The court found two factors dispositive. First, since the communications were essentially private, and did not purport to inform or persuade a wide public audience on a public issue, the court ruled that they were entitled to less protection than those in Pickering. 520 F.2d at 1368. Second, the court noted that the district court, after holding an evidentiary hearing, found that as a result of Roseman's criticisms the harmonious relationship between faculty members was significantly disturbed.
In Sprague v. Fitzpatrick, 546 F.2d 560 (3d Cir. 1976), the first assistant to the Philadelphia District Attorney, in a published interview, sharply disputed the truth of statements made by the District Attorney about a controversial sentencing recommendation. The interview sparked a public uproar about the integrity of the District Attorney, who then fired his first assistant. The court noted that the public importance of the first assistant's statements entitled him to a high degree of First Amendment protection. Nonetheless, it ruled that the controversy sparked by the interview was so disruptive of the working relationship between the two parties that dismissal of the assistant was justified, and it affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
In the instant case, Hoopes' statements are entitled to a high degree of First Amendment protection. Not only were they public statements relevant to an issue of general public concern, they were made while Hoopes was a witness at a federal criminal proceeding. Hoopes contends that because he was a witness, the Pickering standard and the Sprague standard are not directly controlling, and that the federal interest in protecting witnesses, as well as his right to cooperate with federal law enforcement officials, Motes v. United States, 178 U.S. 458, 20 S. Ct. 993, 44 L. Ed. 1150 (1900), entitle him to protection notwithstanding the disruptive impact of his statements.
Hoopes is correct that this is not strictly a First Amendment case in the same sense that Pickering and its progeny were. There is a strong federal interest directly at issue not present in the Pickering line of cases the protection of citizens who cooperate with federal law enforcement interests. This interest touches upon First Amendment issues, because a witness' testimony is certainly protected speech. But as this case demonstrates, the interest of both the government and the citizen who cooperates with it extend far beyond protecting a witness who gives testimony, because cooperation with law enforcement takes many forms. Here, Hoopes provided information to federal agents; withheld certain key information from Nacrelli; gave Nacrelli information fabricated by federal agents; and secretly taped conversations with Nacrelli. These actions, as much as his actual testimony, were the cause of his demotion.
Moreover, in a Pickering-type case, where no criminal wrongdoing is involved, there is somewhat less cause for concern in applying a rule which, in effect, immunizes the defendants from liability for a retaliatory discharge, and penalizes the plaintiff because he is in public employ. The courts have concluded that the public has an interest in the effective functioning of government which outweighs an individual public employee's interest in making public statements without fear of reprisal. In the instant case, however, where the allegation is that the plaintiff was harassed in the course of his cooperation with federal authorities, and finally demoted as a result of that cooperation, the balance of interests is different, and I am hesitant to conclude that the Pickering principle should automatically allow the defendants to act with impunity.
Accordingly, I will assume that Hoopes intended to raise two sets of claims in his complaint: claims that he was demoted because of his exercise of First Amendment rights, and claims that he was demoted because of his cooperation with federal law enforcement authorities. I will evaluate Hoopes' First Amendment claims according to the traditional Pickering standard, without regard to the implications of his role in cooperating with federal law enforcement authorities, and will grant him leave to amend his complaint to state a claim for interference with the constitutional rights conferred by Motes v. United States, supra, 178 U.S. at 462-63, 20 S. Ct. at 994-95.
Leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires," Rule 15(a), F.R.Civ.P., and should be granted unless there are substantial reasons justifying its denial, such as bad faith, undue delay, dilatory motive or prejudice to the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962). An amendment may properly raise a claim not previously stated. Kuhn v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 475 F. Supp. 324 (E.D.Pa.1979); Prandini v. National Tea Co., 62 F.R.D. 503 (W.D.Pa.1974).
Here, the significance of Hoopes' cooperation with law enforcement authorities has been an issue in the case from its early stages, so this is not a case where the defendants can claim surprise at having an issue introduced late in the proceedings. Hoopes has not been dilatory in raising the significance of his participation in the federal investigation, but has attempted to incorporate this point into his First Amendment claims. In granting Hoopes leave to amend his complaint to state a claim under Motes v. United States, I am simply trying to clarify the issues already raised in this suit.
When Hoopes' First Amendment claims are analyzed strictly as free speech claims, without regard to the implications of his status as a witness, it is plain that the Third Circuit cases relied upon by the defendants are applicable here. Hoopes' First Amendment claims are predicated upon his testimony at trial, and upon the communications he engaged in and associations he formed in connection with the federal investigation of Nacrelli. Hoopes' statements in meetings with Nacrelli himself during the course of the federal investigation are analogous to the private communications between the plaintiff professor and dean of the college which were at issue in Roseman v. Indiana University, supra. Similarly, although Hoopes made no public statements about Nacrelli during the course of the investigation, his testimony ...