A federal district court has denied the City of Boston’s motion to dismiss a First Amendment lawsuit filed by Boston firefighter James Riley and IAFF Local 718, stemming from Riley’s four-tour suspension for sending an email about hazardous sidewalk conditions in front of his firehouse.
Riley, who serves on the Executive Board of Local 718, sent the email from his union address to the City’s Chief of Streets in September 2023. The message, approved by the union president and signed with Riley’s union title, raised ongoing public safety concerns about deteriorating sidewalks and handicapped ramps that had already caused injuries to residents and near-misses involving strollers and wheelchairs.
Fire Commissioner Paul Burke suspended Riley, claiming the email was “hostile,” violated the chain of command, and was intended to intimidate a city official. Riley, who had never before been disciplined in 16 years on the job, challenged the suspension as unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech. Here is a link to earlier coverage, including a copy of the complaint filed in US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The City filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Riley’s speech was made in his official capacity and was not entitled to First Amendment protection. The court disagreed. Judge Allison D. Burroughs found that Riley plausibly spoke as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, not as a firefighter carrying out his official duties. The judge also rejected the City’s argument that Riley’s email undermined department discipline or caused disruption, stating there was no evidence of any actual impact.
Importantly, the court allowed both Riley’s individual claim and the union’s associational claim to proceed. It also rejected Fire Commissioner Burke’s qualified immunity defense, finding that the right to speak on public safety matters was clearly established.
The decision sends a clear message: firefighters do not lose their First Amendment rights when they speak out on public hazards, especially when acting in their capacity as union officials.
The case now proceeds to discovery. Here is a copy of the decision:
