Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 08-04-2023

Case Style:

Keath Bartynski v. City of Highland Park, Michigan

Case Number: 21-CV-10049

Judge: Mark A. Goldsmith

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Wayne County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Detroit Civil Rights Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Geoffrey Wagner and John Clark

Description: Detroit, Michigan civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a civil rights violation theory.

Plaintiff Keath Bartynski brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendant City of Highland Park. Am. Compl. (Dkt. 9). Bartynski was employed by the City as a police officer from June 2015 to June 2019. Def. Bartynski Dep. at 9, 34 (Dkt. 39-2); Letter of Resignation (Dkt. 39-4). He alleges that he was retaliated against due to (i) his arrest of Gregory Yopp, the son of the City's former mayor, and (ii) February 2019 testimony that he gave in a retaliation action that another police officer, Ronald DuPuis, brought against the City based on Yopp's arrest. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9-10, 72. Bartynski asserts that as a result of the arrest and his testimony in DuPuis's
Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) against the City-which was unfavorable for the City-he was subjected to multiple frivolous internal affairs investigations by the City's Director of Internal Affairs, Charles Lackey. Def. Bartynski Dep. at 27; Bartynski Testimony in DuPuis Action at 2426; 32-34 (Dkt. 44-3); Am. Compl. ¶ 48. He also alleges that the multiple investigations constituted hostile and disparate working conditions and that, in imposing those hostile and disparate working conditions on him, the City deprived him of his liberty and property interest in his employment. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7-10; 96-99.

In his complaint, Bartynski asserts one count under § 1983 that contains three different claims: (i) a First Amendment retaliation claim, (ii) a substantive due process claim, and (iii) a procedural due process claim. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 94-100.

Outcome: Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case