Adam J. Johnston accepted a conditional offer of employment with the City of Negaunee Police Department in February 2020 and began working as a probationary patrol officer in March 2020. His employment was subject to a probationary period that required completion of training and evaluation.
Johnston, a member of the United States Army Reserves, left in October 2020 for a five-month military training assignment. At the time he left, he had not completed his probationary period. When he returned in March 2021, the City required him to continue and complete his probationary period before obtaining full status.
After Johnston resumed his duties, his supervisors identified concerns regarding the accuracy of his reports and his handling of police matters. These concerns included discrepancies between his statements and body camera footage, as well as issues related to a traffic stop and arrest that resulted in criminal charges being dismissed.
The county prosecutor reviewed Johnston’s conduct and determined that his credibility issues would affect future prosecutions. The prosecutor stated that cases relying on Johnston’s testimony would no longer be pursued.
Following these developments, the City terminated Johnston’s employment in October 2021.
Johnston filed suit asserting claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and the Fourteenth Amendment. He alleged that his probationary period was extended and that he was terminated because of his military service. He also asserted due process and equal protection claims.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and the individual defendants. Johnston appealed.
The appellate court reviewed the grant of summary judgment and addressed Johnston’s USERRA claims. It examined whether his military service was a motivating factor in the extension of his probationary period and his termination.
The court determined that USERRA did not require the City to treat Johnston as having completed his probationary period during his military leave. Because the probationary period involved training and observation, Johnston was required to complete that period upon his return.
The court also reviewed the termination decision. It found that the City presented evidence that Johnston was terminated due to concerns about his credibility and the impact of those concerns on his ability to perform his duties. The prosecutor’s decision not to pursue cases relying on Johnston’s testimony was part of that assessment. The court concluded that the City demonstrated it would have taken the same action regardless of Johnston’s military service.
The court addressed Johnston’s due process claim and found that he did not establish a protected property interest in his employment because he remained a probationary employee at the time of his termination. It also rejected his equal protection claim, concluding that the legal theory he relied on did not apply in the public employment context.
The appellate court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
If you are facing issues related to military service and employment rights, our team handles matters involving USERRA protections, reemployment rights, and workplace disputes involving service members. Contact us to learn how our team can assist with your situation.