Federal Court Dismisses First Amendment Retaliation Suit by Manhattan Beach Fire Officers

A federal judge has granted summary judgment to the City of Manhattan Beach, California, in a First Amendment retaliation case filed by two fire officers. Captains David Shenbaum and Timothy O’Brien sued alleging that they were subjected to retaliatory actions for their union activities and for filing a federal lawsuit against the city.

The plaintiffs, both long-serving captains in the Manhattan Beach Fire Department, alleged that the city’s leadership retaliated against them for participating in a 2018 vote of no confidence against the fire chief and three battalion chiefs. That vote was orchestrated by the Manhattan Beach Firefighters Association (MBFA), the bargaining unit for captains and rank-and-file firefighters. Shenbaum and O’Brien argued that the city responded by enacting a 2020 labor agreement with the management union that significantly cut pay for future battalion chiefs—effectively punishing MBFA members seeking promotion.

They also claimed that the city retaliated against them after they filed their lawsuit in 2022 by manipulating the process for selecting a new “Division Chief”—a renamed version of the Battalion Chief position—ultimately failing them in an interview-only selection process led by outside fire chiefs.

The plaintiffs filed a multi-claim lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting both direct retaliation and municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. Earlier in the case, the court dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ Monell-based claims as duplicative, allowing the suit to proceed only on two core theories: (1) that the 2020 contract change was retaliation for protected union speech, and (2) that the plaintiffs’ failure to be promoted following the filing of the lawsuit was also retaliatory.

In a detailed ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson granted summary judgment to the city on both remaining claims.

On the 2020 contract issue, the court found that while the vote of no confidence was clearly protected speech under the First Amendment, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the city’s pay cut for battalion chiefs constituted an adverse employment action. The court noted that neither plaintiff held a battalion chief position at the time, and the pay change did not affect their current rank or responsibilities. Moreover, the two-year gap between the vote of no confidence and the new contract weakened any inference of retaliatory motive.

Even assuming the contract change was adverse, the court found insufficient evidence of a causal connection between the vote of no confidence and the city’s labor agreement. Text messages disparaging the plaintiffs were deemed inadmissible hearsay, and the city’s financial rationale for the pay reduction—citing high overtime costs and COVID-19 budget impacts—was not rebutted with admissible evidence of pretext.

As for the promotion-related claim, the court acknowledged that denial of a promotional opportunity can constitute an adverse action. But it rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the city manipulated the process in retaliation for the lawsuit. The fire chief panelists who conducted the interview were external to the city and testified that they had no knowledge of the litigation. The court found no evidence that the city influenced the panel’s decision or that the plaintiffs’ failing scores were a pretext.

Importantly, the court also emphasized the plaintiffs’ failure to establish Monell liability—an essential requirement for suing a municipality under § 1983. Without evidence showing that a city policy or final decisionmaker was the “moving force” behind a constitutional violation, the retaliation claims could not survive.

Here is a copy of the decision.