Former Pleasanton Police Officer Sues City For Wrongful Termination

PLEASANTON, CA — A former Pleasanton police officer is claiming in a federal lawsuit against the city that he was fired for attending a “Stop the Steal” rally in Sacramento on Jan. 6, 2021.

Patrick McNeff, who worked for the Pleasanton Police Department for over five years, claims the department violated his protected free speech when it terminated him in February 2022. The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 10 in the U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland, alleges that the department incorrectly linked McNeff to far-right, violent groups, despite contrary findings by an outside law firm.

A representative for the Pleasanton Police Department told Patch that they do not comment on pending litigation.

McNeff previously had a strong record at the PPD and received several outstanding performance evaluations, according to the suit. On Jan. 6, he attended a “Stop the Steal” rally in Sacramento as a private citizen in civilian clothes, and did not identify himself as a police officer. He posted photos of himself and his wife at the rally on a private Facebook page under the pseudonym “Jonathan P.” The photos do not demonstrate that McNeff did anything other than attend the rally as an observer.

Another Pleasanton officer saw the photo, and complained to a superior. The suit alleges that colleagues called McNeff a “moron” and “widely criticized and ridiculed” his actions.

On Jan. 7, an unnamed police sergeant sent a memo to PPD Chief David Swing documenting internal complaints against McNeff’s attendance at the rally, before conferring with McNeff. The suit claims that the sergeant jumped to a number of unfounded conclusions, including that McNeff tied himself to the attack on the U.S. Capitol, and that he associated with extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters. McNeff told investigators that he attended the rally to protest the results of the 2020 election, but would never support or associate extremist groups.

The department hired an outside law firm to investigate five separate allegations made against McNeff. The firm reviewed his social media and interviewed seven colleagues in relation to each allegation, and found that three were not justified, and two were.

• That he associated with racist and antireligious extremist groups at the Jan. 6 rally, in violation of department and city policies. The outside law firm, after interviewing seven other officers, found that McNeff did not violate city or department policies in attending the rally.
• That he posted racist comments on social media in violation of department and city policies. The law firm also found this allegation to be unfounded.
• That he posted anti-Muslim comments on social media in violation of department and city policies. The investigators found some merit in this allegation due to comments he made in 2014 in support of articles that could be construed as offensive to Palestinians and Muslim men.
• That he made derogatory comments about people with mental disabilities, in violation of department and city policies. McNeff commented in support of an article claiming that people with mental illness are the reason for mass shootings rather than guns. The investigators did not conclude that this statement was offensive to people with mental illnesses.
• That he posted comments supporting violence, in violation of department and city policies. In one post, McNeff commented that people will eventually revolt against COVID-19 mandates, and the revolts will be violent if necessary. He also commented that under a photo of protesters in the street, “Isn’t this why cars have bumpers? J/K.” The investigators found that this allegation was founded.

Nevertheless, the suit maintains that McNeff was engaging in “protected political speech” when he made the Facebook comments. “Mr. McNeff was, in fact, fired because he expressed protected political opinions and ideologies deemed ‘unpopular’ and even stupid by the the DEPARTMENT, MR. SWING, and MR. COX,” the suit states.

McNeff has “suffered numerous adverse employment actions, including, but not limited to, administrative leave and revocation of police officer status, public shaming, disgrace and humiliation, being subjected to investigation, termination of employment, and ineligibility for rehire,” according to the suit. He is suing for exemplary and punitive damages that will be determined at trial.