A federal appeals court has ruled that the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) can intervene in a civil rights lawsuit filed by the estate of Donovan Lewis against the City of Columbus, Ohio, and its police chief. The lawsuit stems from the fatal shooting of Lewis by a Columbus police officer in 2022. The court found that the FOP met the requirements to intervene in the case, arguing that the lawsuit could affect the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the city and the police union.
The original lawsuit, filed by the Estate of Donovan L. Lewis, alleges that the Columbus Division of Police (CPD) has a policy or custom of using excessive force against Black people, which led to Lewis’s death. The estate is seeking damages and injunctive relief. The complaint specifically targets several policies and practices within the CPD that are outlined in the city’s CBA with the FOP. These include disciplinary procedures, officer assignments, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Estate argues that these policies contribute to a culture of excessive force.
The FOP’s Argument for Intervention
The FOP sought to intervene in the lawsuit, arguing that the proposed reforms put forth by the Estate would violate the terms of the CBA and negatively impact its approximately 1,800 sworn members. The union claimed that the requested reforms would affect the following:
* The past practices clause (Section 2.7 of the CBA)
* Officer assignments and transfers (Article 11)
* Disciplinary procedures and their duration (Article 10)
* How investigations are conducted (Article 8)
* Officer compliance with Division Directives (Section 14.1)
* The FOP’s ability to address safety concerns (Section 19.1)
The FOP argued that it has a legal obligation to protect its members’ interests, including wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment, as outlined in the CBA. The union believes that the lawsuit’s potential outcomes could harm its members’ contractual benefits and on-the-job safety.
The District Court’s Initial Decision
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio initially denied the FOP’s motion to intervene, finding that the union had a limited interest in the case, primarily in a potential remedial phase, but not in the liability phase. The court suggested that the City of Columbus adequately represented any interests the FOP might have and invited the FOP to refile its motion if the Estate prevailed on the merits or if the parties explored an extra-judicial resolution.
The Appeals Court’s Ruling
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, finding that the FOP met all the requirements to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). This rule allows intervention if the movant:
1. Makes a timely motion
2. Claims an interest related to the subject matter of the action
3. Is situated in a way that the outcome of the action may impair their ability to protect their interest
4. The existing parties do not adequately represent that interest
The appeals court determined that the FOP had a substantial legal interest in the case because the lawsuit directly implicated the CBA and the rights of its members. The court noted that the Estate’s claims targeted policies and practices that stemmed from the CBA, and any changes to those policies would directly affect the union’s obligations and its members’ interests.
The court also found that the FOP’s ability to protect its interests would be impaired if it were not allowed to intervene. The court stated that if the FOP was not allowed to intervene, it would not be able to develop facts and legal defenses that could protect the challenged policies.
Finally, the appeals court concluded that the City of Columbus might not adequately represent the FOP’s interests. The court noted that the City and the FOP have different objectives in collective bargaining, and the City might not defend the CBA provisions with the same vigor as the union. The court pointed out that the City had, at times, expressed positions contrary to the FOP’s interests.
Implications of the Ruling
The Sixth Circuit’s decision allows the FOP to participate in the lawsuit, giving the union a voice in the proceedings and the opportunity to defend the CBA provisions. This means the FOP can present evidence, introduce witnesses, and make arguments to protect its members’ interests. The ruling could also influence future settlement negotiations and any potential injunctive relief.
The case highlights the complex interplay between civil rights litigation, collective bargaining agreements, and the rights of police unions. It underscores the importance of the CBA in defining the terms and conditions of employment for police officers and the potential impact of legal challenges on those agreements.