FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 30, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 55 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 01 73 -KOB

R. CRAWFORD W ELCH, GILES F. CRIDER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , vers us F. MARION CAIN, II I, in hi s i nd iv idua l capa ci ty, CALHOUN COUNTYCOMM ISSI ON, THE , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 30 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, BARKETT andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

R. Crawf or d Welchan d Gi le s F. Cr id er ap pe al fro m th e d is m is sa l wi th pr ejud ic e o f th ei r co m

pl ai ntall eg in g t ha t the de fen da nt s, i nc lu di ng th ei r fo rm er supe rv is or , Mari on Cai n II I, atth e Cen te r fo r Dom es ti c Pre pa redne ss (“ CPD”) vi ol at edth ei r Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts . W el chan d C rid er al le ge inth ei r 1
co m pl ai ntth atwhi le th ey

were em pl oyed b y th e CPD the y

m ad e num ero us di sc lo su res in vo lv in g m at te rs of p ub li c co nc ernab ou t co rrupt io n, fr au d, s ex ua l ha ras sm en t, an d was te of g ov ern m en t fu nd s atCPD. They all eg e th atwhen th e de fen da nt s fo un d o utth atth ey m ad e su chdi sc lo su res , th e d efen da nt s t erm in at ed th em . The d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d Welch ’s andCri de r’s Fir stAm en dm en t cl ai m s ag ai ns t Ca in , con cl ud in g t ha t the cla im s co ul d n otbe su st ai ne d b ecau se th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inBu sh v. Lu cas , 46 2 U.S. 3 67 (19 83 ), pr ecl ud es fed eral em

pl oyees fr om

bri ng in g ada m ag es cla im forret al ia to ry

di sc harg e und er th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f a m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r

The district cour

t previously

dismiss ed all cla ims ag ainst defe ndants, J anet Na politano, 1 Secre tary of the Department of H omeland Security , and the Cente r for Domestic Prepa

redne ss, and dismissed, as to all defe ndants, Welch’s and Cride r’s c laims under the State Employees Protection Act (SEPA) a

nd their Equal Protec tion Cl aim under the Four teenth Amendme nt. They are not appea ling a

ny of these r ulings. Welch a

nd Crider a lso voluntarily dismiss ed their claims ag ainst defe ndant, Calhoun County Commi ssion. Thus, the only issue in this appeal is the dismiss al of the Welch’ s and Crider’ s First Amendme nt claims ag ainst defe ndant, Cain. 2fai lu re t o s tate a cl ai m , acce pt in g a ll th e fac tu al all eg at io ns as t ru e an d c on st ru in g

th em inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ffs . Am ne st y Int ’l, USA v. Bat tl e, 55 9 F .3d11 70 , 11 76 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Havi ng co ns id eredth e arg um en ts of t he pa rti es an d h av in g re vi ewedth e al le ga ti on s i n t he co m pl ai ntinth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to W el chan d C rid er, we aff irm th e d is m is sa l o f th ei r co m pl ai nt . Here, Welch an d C rid er h av e al le ge d tha t dur in g a ll m at eri al ti m es , th ey were em pl oyed b y th e Defen da nt s, wh ic h i nc lu de d J an etNapo li ta no , th e Sec ret ary of Hom el an d S ecu rit y , th e CDP, an d C ai n, the th enDire ct orof t he CDP. Eachof th es e d efen da nt s i s a f

ed eral go ve rn m en t en ti ty or of fic ia l. Des pi te th es e al le ga ti on s, Welch an d C rid er ar gu e o n app eal th atth ey ha ve no t al le ge d t ha t the y are f ed eral em pl oyees, an d t hu s, i t wo ul d b e im pr op er t o d is m is s the ir c om pl ai ntat th is st ag e o f th e li ti ga ti on . This arg um en t i s wi th ou t m eri t. The co m pl ai ntall eg es th at“ [a]t al l m at eri al ti m es , th e p la in ti ffs were em pl oyed b y th e Defen da nt s.” Th e on ly defen da ntat i ss ue inth is ap pe al is Cai n, the form er Di rect orof t he CDP, a fed eral ag en cy . Alth ou gh th e co m pl ai ntdo es no t ex pl ic it ly use th e wor ds

“ fed eral ” em

pl oyees, the on ly reaso nabl e in fere nc e th atcanbe drawn fr om all of th e al le ga ti on s i n the co m pl ai nt , is th atW el chan d C rid er were fed eral em pl oyees

3atth e CDP. 2

Acco rd in gl y , we see no erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f W el ch ’s and Cri de r’s Fir stAm en dm en t cl ai m s ag ai ns t d efen da nt , Cai n. AFFIRMED.

Welch and Crider

arg ue that they

are “contr act” employees f or a f eder al ag ency

and that 2 this status would notprec lude their c ause of action. We nee d not decide whether Bush would prec lude a “ contra ct” e mployee f rom stating a

cause of ac tion under the F irst Amendment, beca use eve n construingall of the a lleg ations in the complaint in the light most favora ble to Welch and Crider , we so no ba sis to conclude that they have a lleg ed that they

are“contr act” employees. 4