N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
RHONDA LEDFOR

D; R AYM OND GREGSTON; JO M c KINNEY; SHANE PENR O D; KIM M c C ORM IC K; B OB R OB INSON; GR

AC IE REYNA; TOM DE KNIJF; FR

A NK FAR NW OR TH; DIANA C AR

NELL; PHILIP GREGSTON; LISA LITTLEFIELD; ADDISON FORD HAM ,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, v. IDAHO DEPAR TM ENT OF JUVENILE C ORREC TIONS, a

n e xe c utive de pa

rtm e nt of the State of Ida

ho, De fe nda nt,
and SHAR ON HAR

R IGFELD, IDJC Dire c tor; B ETTY GRIM M , IDJC Juve nile C orre c tions C e nte r - Nam p a Supe rinte nde nt,

De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts. No. 14-35185

D.C . No. 1:12 c v-0326 B LW
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

AUG 09 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Appe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho B . Ly nn W inm ill, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

5, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KLEINFELD, TASHIM A, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Sharon Ha

rrigfe l d, Dire c tor of the Idaho De pa rtm e nt of Juve nile C orre c tions (“ IDJC ” ), and form e r IDJC Supe rinte nde nt B e tty Grim m (toge the r, “ De fe nda

nts” )
a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of sum m a ry judgm e nt ba s e d on qua lifie d im m unity . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. An offic ia l is e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity if he r “ c onduc t doe s not viola te c le arly e sta blishe d sta

tutory or c onstitutiona

l rights of which a re a sona ble pe rson would ha

ve known.” Pe arson v . C allahan , 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (c ita tion omitte d). W e re vie w a de n ia l of qua lifie d im

m unity de novo, B ry an v . Mac

Phe rson , 630 F.3d 805, 823 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd we re ve rse . The te n pla intiffs, c urre nt a nd form e r IDJC e m

ploy e e s, a l le ge tha

t De fe nda nts re ta lia te d a g a inst the m

for re porting c orrupt pra c tic e s at the IDJC , in viola tion of theFirst Am e ndm e nt. In de te rm ining whe the r a public e m

p loy e r viola te d the First Am e ndm e nt rights of a n e m ploy e e , c ourts m

ust “ se e k ‘ a

ba la nc e be twe e n the inte re sts of the[e m ploy e e ] , a s a

c itiz e n , in c om

m e nting upon matte rs 2of public c onc e rn and the inte re st of theState , a s a n e m ploy e r, in prom o ting the
e ffic ie nc y of the public se rvic e s it pe rform s through its em ploy e e s.’ ” D ahlia v
. Rodrigue z , 735 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ) (quoting Pic k

e ring v
. Bd. of Educ
. , 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)). In a pply ing this bal anc ing te st, we m ake
a five -ste p inquiry : (1) whe the r the pla intiff spokeon a m atte r of public c o nc e rn; (2) whe the r the pla intiff spokea s a priva t e c itiz e n or public e m

p loy e e ; (3) whe the r the pla intiff’ s prote c te d spe e c h wa s a substa ntia l or m otiva ting fa c tor in thea dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c t ion; (4) whe the r the sta

t e ha d a n a de quat e justific ation for tre ating thee m ploy e e diffe re ntly

from othe r m e m

be rs of the ge ne ra l public ; an d (5) whe the r the sta

t e would ha

ve ta ke n the a dve rse e m

p loy m e nt a c t ion e ve n a bse nt the prote c te d spe e c h. Id. (quoting E

ng v . C oole y , 552 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th C ir. 2009)). Thepublic
e m ploy e e -pla intiff m

ust sa tisfy a ll five fa c tors in orde r to sta te a va lid First Am e ndm e nt c la im
. Id. at 1067 n.4. 1. De fe nda

nts a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity on Pla i ntiffs Sha

ne Pe nrod, Gra c ie R e yna , Addison Fordha m , Lisa Little fie ld, a

nd Kim M c C orm ic k’ s First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia

tion c la im s be c a

use none of the se five Pla intiffs spokeon a m atte r of public c onc e rn a s a priva te c i tiz e n . Pe nrod, R e yna , Fordha m , an d Little fie l d a

re re h a bilita tion a nd se c urity offic e rs who work c lose ly with the juve nile d e ta ine e s at IDJC and a re re sponsiblefor e nsuring thesa fe ty and se c urity

3of both juve nile s a nd fe llow sta ff. The ir sa fe ty -re lat e d spe e c h , ra ise d only inte rna lly , fe ll within the

sc ope of the ir job dutie s a nd is not prote c te d by

the First Am e ndm e nt. S

e e Hage n v . C

ity of Euge ne , 736 F.3d 1251, 1258-59 (9th C i r. 2013) (holding tha

t polic e offic e r who voc a liz e d sa fe ty c onc e rns a

bout a c c i de nta l disc ha rge s of fire arm s spoke pursua nt to his job dutie s a s a

public e m

ploy e e ). Like wise , M c C orm ic k’ s inte rna l spe e c h re lating to pa yroll c om pla ints a nd IDJC ’ s e xpe nse s is “ ine xtric a

bly inte rtwine d” with he r dutie s a s a fina nc ia l te c hnic ia

n a nd
c annot form

the ba sis of a

First Am e n dm e nt viola

tion. Id. at 1259. Finally , Fordham and Little fie l d’ s c om

pla ints a bout theprom otion proc e ss of a supe rvisor flowe d from “ individual pe rsonne l dispute s and grie v anc e s” and thus did not
c onstitute prote c te d spe e c h on a

m atte r of public c onc e rn. De sroc he rs v . C

ity of San Be rnardino , 572 F.3d 703, 710 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita tions omitte d). 2. De fe nda

nts a re a lso e ntitle d

to qua lifie d

im m unity on Pla intiffs R honda Le dford, R ay

Gre gston, Tom

De Knijf, Jo M c Kinne y , a nd Frank Farnworth’ s First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia tion c la i m s. None of the se Pla intiffs
e xpe rie nc e d re ta lia

tion by De fe nda nts a s a re sult of the i r spe e c h. To pre va il on a First Am e ndm e nt c la im , a pla intiff m

ust e sta b lish tha t the e m ploy e r took “ a c tion de signe d to re ta l iate a ga i nst a nd c hill politic a l e xpre ssion,” C oszalte r v . C

i ty of Sale m , 320 F.3d 968, 975 (9th C ir. 2003) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d),
4without “ a d e quate justific ation for tre ating thee m ploy e e diffe re ntly ,” Eng , 552 F.3d at 1070. None of De fe nda

nts’ a c t ions a ga i nst Le dford c onstitute s a n a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion in viola

tion of theFirst Am e ndm e nt. The “ e xpe c tation” tha t Le dford ra ise he r pe rsonne l a nd work-re late d c onc e rns with her supe rvisors, De fe nda nts, or Hum an R e s ourc e s c annot re a sona bly be e n se e n a s “ c hilling” Le dford’ s prote c te d spe e c h ; it m e re l y dire c te d Le dford to voic e he r c onc e rns to
m ana ge m e nt, inste a d

of to he r c o-worke rs. M ore ove r, give n the hie rarc hic a l
e m ploy m e nt se tting of a

juve n ile c orre c tiona l fa c ility , suc h instruc tion wa s a de quate ly

justifie d. Se e C

onnic k v . My e r

s , 461 U.S. 138, 151–52 (1983). Like wise , the de nia l of inte rm i tte nt le ave unde r the Fam ily M e dic a l Le ave Ac t, whic h would ha

ve pe rm itte d Le dford to le ave work without notic e whe ne ve r she
e xpe rie nc e d a

nxie ty while working with juve nile offe n d e rs, wa s a de quate ly justifie d. Fina lly , e ve n ta king thee vide nc e in the light most fa vora b le to Le dford,
no re a sona

ble jury c ould find tha

t De fe nda nts “ m onitore d” Le dford or othe rwise tre ate d he r unfa irly

be c a u s e she e n ga ge d in prote c te d spe e c h. De fe nda nts a lso did not reta lia

te a ga inst a

ny of the othe r four Pla intiffs. In
re sponse to Gre g ston’ s c irc ulation of a fa c ility -wide pe tition que stioning IDJC ’ s hiring pra c tic e s , De fe nda nts m e re ly

a ske d him

to use the e sta

blishe d grie va nc e 5proc e s s to ra ise future c onc e rns; this re q ue st wa s not “ re a sona

bly like l y to de te r [Gre gston] from

e nga ging in prote c te d a c t ivity .” C oszalte r , 320 F.3d a

t 976 (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). Nor is the re is a ny e vide nc e to substa

ntia te his
c la im tha t De fe nda nts “ m onitore d” him
. De Knijf a nd Fa rnworth c onte nd tha

t the y we re subje c t

to unwa rrante d disc ipline , but the y provide no e vide nc e tha t a ny disc ipline , im

p ose d by the ir dire c t supe rvisors, wa s c a

use d by De

fe ndants
. Se eDahlia , 735 F.3d a t 1078 (e xpla ining that , to be lia

b le , a de fe nda nt m ust ha ve e i the r pe rsona lly

pa rtic ipate d in the
c onstitutiona

l de priva tion or “ s e t[] in m otion a

se rie s of a c ts by

othe rs whic h the
a c tor knows or re a sona

bly should know would c a

u se othe rs to inflic t the
c onstitutiona

l injury ” (intrna l quota

tion m akrs om itte d)). Sim ila rly , M c Kinne y

ha s not shown tha

t De fe nda nts we re involve d in a

ny wa y in he r re m ova l from the data e ntry proje c t, or tha

t Grim m wa s m otiva

te d by M c Kinne y ’ s prior spe e c h whe n she de c line d to inte rve ne a fte r M c Kinne y c om pla ine d a bout he r supe rvisor’ s le c ture .

• ! • B e c a use the re is no showing tha t De fe nda nts viola te d the c onstitutiona

l rights of a

ny of the Pla i ntiffs, the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing De fe nda nts sum m ary judgm e nt ba se d on qua lifie d im m unity with re spe c t

to the First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia

tion c la im s of a ll te n Pla i ntiffs. On re m and, the distric t c ourt is
6dire c te d to e nte r sum m ary judgm e nt for De fe n da nts Ha rrigfe ld a nd Grim m on a ll of Pla intiffs’ First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia tion c la im s. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

7