Dahlia v. Rodriguez: En Banc Panel Holds That Police Officer May Prosecute Section 1983 Action Based on Allegation That Department Placed Him on Administrative Leave in Retaliation for Reporting Alleged Misconduct of Other Officers

In Dahlia v. Rodriguez, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 8/7/12) (discussed here), the Ninth Circuit held that the First Amendment does not protect a police officer who reports allegedly illegal conduct by fellow officers. On August 21, 2013, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, holding: 

1. After Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 424 (2006), courts must make a “practical” inquiry when determining the scope of a government employee’s professional duties, and Huppert v. City of Pittsburg, 574 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2009) erred in concluding that California broadly defines police officers’ duties as a matter of law for the purpose of First Amendment retaliation analysis; and 
2. Placement on administrative leave can constitute an adverse employment action. 

The Court also held that on remand, the plaintiff could renew his request for leave to amend his complaint to allege more explicitly which acts were protected by the First Amendment and which acts constituted adverse employment actions. 

Dahlia v. Rodriguez, __ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 8/21/13) is available here.