## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 1567 W I L L I A M H. M O SS, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v.
T IMO THY M ARTIN , etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 04- 3217

—Jean ne E . Sc ott, Judge
.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 11, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 2, 2010

Befo re K ANN E , W OO D , a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. P o l i ti ca l pa tr o na g e l i es a t the hear t o fthi s ca se

— thi s t i m e, f avo ri ti sm bas ed on pol i ti cal p a r t y a ffiliat ion in t h e H igh w ay Sign Sh op of th e Illino is De p a r t me n to fT r a n s p o r t a t i o n ( “ I DO T ” )

. Wi l l i a m H. M os s w or ke d as th e C h ief of t h at s h o p f ro m 20 00 u n til Ap r i l 2 0 0 4 , w h e n h e w a s fi r e d t o ma k e r o o m f o r a n e mplo yee chos en bythe adm i ni str ati on o fthen-G ov ernor R od B lag ojev ich . M os s s u ed a n u m b e r o fst at e o fficia ls2 N o. 09

- 1567 und er42 U

. S. C. § 1 983, as ser ti ng tha t hi s r i ghts und er t h e F irst A m en d m en t and the d ue proc ess clau se w ere vi ol ate d. The dis tr i c t c ou rtdi sm i sse d al l cl ai m s o n the pl eadi ngs, se e F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 12(c), bu t this cou rt rul ed that M oss was enti tl ed to go f or w ar d w i th hi s F i rs t A m endm ent theor y. S ee M o ss v . M a rtin, 473 F. 3d 694 (7th C ir. 2007) (“ M o ss I” ). O n rem an d , the d istri ct cou rt rul ed that the defendants were enti tl ed to qua li fi ed i m m unity b ecause theyr el i ed on the co ncl u sion of I l l i noi s’ s Centr alM an age m ent S er vi ces ( “CM S”) ag ency th atM o ss ’ s j o b was “ exem p t” f r o m the r ul e ba nni ng po l i ti ca l l y -ba se d fi r i ng s es tabl i sh ed i n Rut an v. Repub l i ca n P a rty o f Illino is, 497 U

. S. 62 (1990). Th e c ou rt therefore gran ted sum m ary j ud gm en t to the defen d an ts, an d M oss’s se co nd a ppea l i s no w b efo r e us . Altho ug h we fi nd tha t th e deci si on t o fi re M oss pro b ab ly f el l af oulo fthe Rut an pr i nc i pl e, we agree wi ththe di st r i ctc o ur t th atthe de f en d an ts w ere ent itl ed to qu ali fi ed im m un ity. W e the refore a ffi r m.

I M o sto fthe de tai l s co nc erni ngM o ss ’ s j o b an d the ev en ts l ea di ngt o hi s fi r i ngwer e se t o uti n M oss I, 47 3 F

. 3d at 697- 98, and so we p ro vid e only a s um m ar y her e. M oss bega n w or king as the Chi efo fI DO T’s H i ghw ay Si gn Shop i n Springfi el d i n Se ptem ber20 00. H i s i m m edi ate supervi sorwas J oe H i l l, th e B urea u Chiefo fOperat i ons; H i l l r epo r te d t o J ac kHoo k, the De put y Direct o r o fHi g hw ays . M oss was re sp on sibl e f oro ver see i ng the f abr i cati on a nd r epa i r ofal l the hi ghw ay si gns s catt er ed acr ossN o. 09

- 1567 3 th e S ta te o fI l l i noi s; in tha t ca pac i ty, he s upe r vi se d abo ut 25 em plo yee s. I n J anuary20 03, I lli noi s e nd ed a l ong run o fRepubl i can g ove rno rs wh en Rod Bl agoj evi ch, a Dem ocr at, to ok o ffi c e . Ab o uta y e a r l a t e r, a p e r s o nn e l ma na ger atI DOT na med J a c o b M i l l e r ha pp e ne d t o r un a c r o s s a newspaper ar ti cl e that m enti oned thatM oss w as runni ng f or a pos i ti on a s a Republi can pre ci nct co m m i tte epers on f orS angam on County. M i l l ercheck ed a few hum an r esour ces re cor ds and disco ver ed that M oss w as o n ID O T ’s lis t o fso -c alle d d ou b le-e x em p t e m p loy ee s. In pla i n Engli sh, thatm eans that CM S, t h e stat e a gency re sponsibl e f oradm i ni ste ri ng al m ostal l st ate hi ri ng, had co nc l ude d tha t hi s po si tion w as s ubj ec t ne i th ert o the I l l i noi s Per sonnelCode nor the S up re m e Cour t’ s Rut an deci si on. Bri efly, Rut an hel d that g ove rnm ents m ay not base em plo ym en t deci si ons such as prom oti ons, tr ansf er s, and rec al l s f orl ow-l eve l em plo yee s o n pol i ti cal a ffi l i a t i o n o r s u p po r t ; t o d o s o w o u l d b e a n i mperm iss ibl e infr i ngem ent o n the pu bl i c em plo yee s’ Fi rs t A m endm ent r i ghts. Peo ple in no n-e xem pt posi ti ons, w here pol i ti call oya l ty i s a b o n a f i der equi re m ent, do not enj oy com parabl e pr ote cti on. A fterM i l l erl ear ned that M os s w as d ou b le-e x em p t, h e q u i c k l y s h ot off an em ail on D ecem ber22 , 20 03, to Robe rtM i l l ett e, the Dir ecto r of Fi nance a n d A dm i ni str ati on f orI DO T, as ki ng i fM i l l ett e th o ug httha t M o ss s ho ul d b e fi r ed f o r s uppo r tingthe p olit ica l op p os itio n . M ille t te an sw er ed ye s a n d to ld M i l l erto st ar t pr eparing the nece ssa rypaperwork

. A fe w mo n th s l a t e r, S co ttD o u b e tr e p l a c e d Mi l l e r . As f aras thi s r eco rd sho w s, th e tw o m en neve r disc ussed4 N o. 09

- 1567 M oss ’ s s i tuati on. But ar ou n d that t i m e a l egi sl ati ve l i ai son f or the Blag oj evi ch adm i ni str ati on tol d D ou bet to fi nd a j ob f or J oe A they, wh om M oss descr ibes as a pol i ti call oya l i st f orthe Blag oj ev i ch te am . Doubet l oo ked a r o u n d a n d d e c i d e d t o g i v e Ath e y th e j o b o f C h i efo ft he H i g hway Si g n S ho p. M i l l et te a nd Ti m o th y M ar tin, the S ec r et ar y o fI DOT, s i g ne d o ffo n Doube t’ s dec i si o n. M oss w as fi re d o n A pri l 26, 2004, and Athe y re p laced hi m . M oss res p on d ed w i th thi s s uit, wh i ch he fi l ed aga i nst M ar ti n ( i n both hi s i nd i vi d ual and offi ci alcap acities), M ill e tte, and anoth er I D O T em p loyee. Ga ry H anni g, the curr ent S ecr eta ryo fthe D epart m ent, has been substi tuted f orM i l l ett e with re sp ec t t o the o ffi ci al capaci ty cl ai m s.

II A s w e n ot ed a b ov e, th e F irs t A m en d m en t c laim in M o ss ’ s ca se s ur vi ve d o ne r o und o fa ppea l

. Ba cki n the d i s t r i c tc o u r t, th e p a r t i e s fi l e d c r o s s - mo t i o n s f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm ent. Defendants’ m oti on r el i ed on qual i fi ed i m m unity, and so that is w hat the di str i ct c ourtf ocuse d on. I t recogn ized that there are tw o e lem en ts of a q u al i f i ed im m u n ity cla im

— fi rs t, thatthe defe nd ants vi ol ate d M os s’s const i tuti onalr i ghts, and sec ond, that th o se r i g ht s wer e cl ea r l y e st ab l i sh ed a t th e ti m e th e d efend ants acte d

— a nd tha ti th a d d i s c r e t i o n t o a ddr ess the s eco nd el em ent fi rs t. S ee P earso n v . Ca lla ha n, 129 S. Ct. 808 ( 2009 )

. Find i ng tha t j ud i ci ale c onom y would be pro m o te d b y d oi ngs o i n Mos s’ s ca se , the c o ur t putt o o ne si de the questi on wh etherthe defe nd ants had viol ate dN o. 09

- 1567 5 M os s’s Firs t A m en d m en t ri gh ts an d m ov ed im m ed iat ely to the i ssue w hethertheyhad done so i n dis rega rd o f c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d l a w. T h e un disputed ev i dence, the cour t f ound, showed that the defendants, al l fro m I DO T, r elied o n the deci si on ofCM S to c las sify the posi ti on o fChie fo fthe H i ghw ay Si gn S hop as Rut an- ex em p t w he n th ey d e c id ed to fire M o ss . CM S ha d m ade tha t des i g na ti o n i n 1 99 2, l o ng b efo re M os s t oo k t h e p os itio n , at a tim e w h en Il lin ois ha d a Re publ i ca n g o ve r no r, a nd l o ngb ef o r e th e Bl ag oj ev i cha dm i ni st r at i o n t o o ko ffi ce . The c o ur t f o und that ther e was no rul e r equi ri ng the I DO T perso nnel to seco nd

- guess the j ob descri pti on that CM S w as usi ng. Infac t, th e c ou rtco n c lu d ed th at ev en th e d ec isio n in Ril ey v . Blagoj e vi ch, 4 25 F .3d 35 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) , wh i ch wa s h a nd e d d o wn a ft e r the e v e nt s i n thi s c a s e , s up po rt ed the i dea thatpol i ti call eader s were enti tl ed to r el y o n e xi st i ngs ta te pe r so nne l de sc r i pti o ns unl es s th e j ob d escr i pti on i s s yst em ati cal l y unre l i abl e. M oss urg ed th athe was e l i g ibl e f o r the l at ter ex ce pti o n ( di sr eg ar di ng the t i m i ng probl em ) , but he pre sente d no ev i dence that a n un r e l i a b l e p r o c e s s wa s u s e d t o d eve l op the de s c r i pt i o n f o r h i s p o s i t i o n . T h e c o u r ta l s o n o t e d th a tth e e mplo yi ng ag ency

— he r e , I DOT

— did n ot have the a uthor i ty to change a desi gnati on by CM S that a posi ti on was Rut anexem pt. I t a l so obs er ved that none ofthe defe nd ants indepe nde nt l y e va l ua te d M o ss ’ s po si ti o n t o de te r m i ne w hetherpol i ti calaffi l i ati on was a properco n sid er ati on f orj ob acti ons.6 N o. 09

- 1567 III A M oss urg es that th e p osi ti on o fChie fo fthe H i ghw ay Si gn S hop i s t oo l ow on t he to tem pol e t o be c l ass i fi ed as Rut an- exem pt. Thi s i s the questi on that the di str i ct cou r tdi d n o tr e a c h, b utb e c a us e the i nqui r y i nto ho w cl ea r l y e st ab l i sh ed th es e r ul es are touche s o n the und er l yi ng i ssue, we tak e a m om ent t o disc uss i t. The Fi rs t Am endm ent pr ohibi ts a s tate em plo yerfro m ter m i nati ng the em plo ym ent o fa w or kero n the b asi s o f he r p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s unl e s s p o l i t i c a l a ffi l i a t i o n i s a n a ppropri at e requir em ent forthe posi ti on. S ee Gunvi l l ev. Wa lk er, 58 3 F

. 3d 979, 98 3- 84 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( ci ti ng Bran t iv. F inkel, 4 4 5 U. S

. 5 0 7( 1 9 8 0 ) )

. T he o nl y s e r i o us questi on here i s whether M oss ’ s j ob w as one i n w hi ch pol i ti cal affi l i ati on was a val i d consi derat i on. The r eco rd i s cl ear th athe w as a m embe r o fthe Re publ i ca n P ar tya nd th at M i l l ett e knew thi s f act. W hetherany ofthe othe r d efend an ts kn ew i s less cl ear. The sta te ar gues that the e xchan ge b etween M i l l ett e a nd M i l l er atthe e nd o f2 0 0 3 mo r e o r l e s s di s s i pa t e d, and nothi ng ca m e o fi t. M i l l erte sti fi ed that he w as not su re w ha t bec am e of th e p ap erw ork he initi ated to fire M oss . Onlyafte r D ou bet too k o ffi ce a nd the l egi sl ati ve l i ai s o n a pp r o a c he d h i m, l o o k i ngf o r a j o b f o r Athe y, did M oss fi nal l y los e h is j ob. Thi s, the sta te say s, pl aces an i nter veni ng ca use be tw een M i l l ett e a nd M i l l er ’ s pl an and the ac tualfi ri ng. M oss cou n te rs thatM i l l ett e hi re d A they onl y t o ple ase th e D em oc ra tic ad m in ist ra tio n . U n for tu n at ely , th er e isN o. 09

- 1567 7 l i ttl e e vi dence to bac k up this as ser ti on. A l l M oss has is D ou b et ’s t es tim on y t h at h e t old M illet te an d M ar tin th a ta l e g i s l a t i v e l i a i s o n i n th e a d mi n i s t r a t i o n h a d r e c o mm en ded Athe y f o r a j o b. Do ube t spe cul at ed th atthe l i ai son m ay have w an ted to pl ace A they ther e be cause ofh i s loy alt y t o t h e a d m in ist ra tio n, bu t t h er e is n o e viden ce t o s ubs ta nt i at e th at the o r y . F o r a l l a ny o ne knows, A they’ s a pp oi ntm ent m ay h av e been m oti vate d b y n ep ot ism , or by th e d es ire t o p lea se a p ar tic u lar ly pow er ful Repu bl i can l egi sl ato r. I fi t were the lat te r, then M oss w oul d b e out of l uck. H e cannot suc c ee d unl ess he can show t h a t h e w as rep laced by som eon e w ith d if

f er ent i deol ogi calbel iefs. S ee H all v. B abb, 38 9 F

. 3d 758, 76 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)

. Ev ent ak i ngthe eviden ce in the li gh t m o stf av o r ab l e to M o ss , a s we musto n s um m ary j ud gm ent, i t i s har d to fi nd a genui ne f act u al d i spute o n the quest i on wh etherM i l l ett e’ s deci si on t o hi re A they w as ba se d on A th ey ’s p olit ica l loya ltie s. C f. Cusson-Co bb v. O ’Le s s k e r, 9 53 F

. 2d 10 79 , 1 08 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2) ( r ej ec ting pl aint i ff’ s uns ubs ta nt i at ed cl ai m tha t sa vv y g o ve r nm ent o ffi ci al s knew thatshe w as a Republ i can be cause sh e had been ap p ointed by the l ast ad m inistration). The re cor d never thel ess m i ght per m i t a f act- fi nd erto deci de that M i l l ett e a gr eed to fi re M oss b ec au se of M oss ’ s a cti ve ro l e in the l oca l Republi can par ty. W hen Doubet r eco m m ended hir i ng Athey i n Feb ruar y o r M arch 20 04, the I DOT de f en dan ts may ha ve b ee n i n the proce ss of ter m i nati ng M oss ’ s em plo ym ent becau se o f hi s par ti sa n comm en ts
. M i l l ert es ti fi ed th atthe hi r i ng p rocess f or Rut an- exem pt posi ti ons re quir es som e 2 0 t o 30 diff er en t steps; i t i s thus l i kel y that the pro cess8 N o. 09

- 1567

re q u ire d to fire e m p loy ee s in th os e p os itio n s is eq u ally pr o t r a c t e d. At he y ’ s a pp e a r a nc e o n the s c e ne mayhave been j ust what M illet te needed to com ple te the j ob of dism i ssi ng M oss . The defe nd ants’ st or y r equi re s o ne to bel i eve that M i l l ett e a gr ee d to fi re M oss o n pol i ti calgr ounds, then back ed away fro m thatdeci si on, and fi nal l y fi re d h im a few m on th s la te r b ec au se D ou b et se re n d ip ito u sly sel ecte d M oss ’ s pos i ti on a s the o ne Rut an- exem pt spot that he fel t fi t Athey’ s s ki l l s. The co nnecti on be tw een M i l l et te ’ s k no wl edg e o fM o ss ’ s po l i ti ca l c o nne ct i o ns and M oss ’ s di sch ar ge thu s m i ght r ai se the k i nd o fquesti o n o fi nt en t th at, o n the mer i ts , woul d b es t be l eft to the tr i ero ff act. S ee D a rch a kv. C ity of C hic ago B d. o

f E du c., 58 0 F.3 d 62 2, 63 3 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); Casn a v. C ity of Lo ve s Park, 574 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009). M o s s ’ s cas e a g a i ns tMar t i n i s o n s ha k i e r g r o un d. No d i r e c te v i d e n c e , a n d n o th i n gb u ts p e c u l a t i v e c i r c u mst an t i a l e v i d e n c e , i n d i c a t e s th a tMa r t i n e v e r kn e w ab o ut M oss ’ s pol i ti calaffi l i ati on. M or eov er, nothi ng i nd i cate s th atM artin was a war e o fthe c o nt en t o fthe e m ai l e xch an ge in D ecem ber 2003 betw ee n M ill ette an d M il ler. M ar tin de ni ed k no wi ngtha t M o ss was a mem be r o fthe Repu bl i can par ty, and Doubet doe s no t r em em berev er m enti oni ng M oss ’ s pol i ti cs t o M ar ti n. Even i f M ar tin, as M oss ins ists, knew that A they had som e k i nd o fpol i ti cal co nne ct i o ns , we ha ve a l r ea dy ex pl aine d w hy thi s va g ue k no wl edg e i s no t g o o d e no ug h.N o. 09

- 1567 9 B Eve n g i vingM o ss the b en efi t o fthe do ubta nd as su m i ngtha t th er e a r e g en ui ne l y di spu te d fa ct s ab o utthe ex istenc e of a p oli tical m otivation for his fi r ing, th ere are tw o othe r hur d les h e m ust pass befor e we w oul d be re q u ire d t o r ev er se th e d ist ric t c ou rt . First, he w ou ld need to sho w thatthe j ob ofChie fo fth e Highway S i gn Shop w as w ro ngl y c l ass i fi ed as Rut an- e xe mpt, a nd s e c o nd , he wo u l d n e e d t o s h o w th a t th i s wa s s o p l a i n tha t th e defe nd ants shoul d be deni ed qual i fi ed i m m unity. On the fi rs t o f thos e i ssues , M oss ’ s ca se l oo ks prom i si ng. Altho ug h the F i r stAm en dm en t pr o hibi ts g o ve r nm en t e mpl o y e r s fr o m t a k i n gmo s te mpl o y ee s ’ p o l i t i c a l v i e ws into co ns i der at i o n whe n mak i ngj o b dec i si o ns , the Suprem e Cour t has l ong re cogni zed an excepti on t o that rul e f orposi ti ons that i nv ol ve confi denti alo r pol i cym aki ng r esponsibi l i ti es. S ee E lro d v . B urn s, 42 7 U .S. 34 7, 36 7 ( 1976 )

. I n deci ding w hethera parti cul ar j o b f al l s wi th i n the ex cep ti o n, the c o ur t ex ami ne s th e i nherentduti es ofthe posi ti on. S ee R iley, 425 F. 3d at 365. I n M oss I, we fou n d t h at the j ob descri pti on f orthe Ch i ef ofthe H i ghw ay Si gn S hop w as i nconcl u siv e. 47 3 F

. 3d at 69 9. T h e C h ief do es n ot h av e a c c es s t o p olit ica lly se n siti ve i nfo rm ati on, but the defen dants ar gue that he noneth e l e s s i s i n v o l v e d i n “ th e ma k i n g o f p o l i c y a nd t hus the e xerci se of p olit i calj ud gm ent. ” A llen v . M a rtin, 460 F.3d 939, 944 (7th C ir. 2006); K i ddy- Brown v. Blagoj e vi ch, 40 8 F.3d 346 , 355 (7th Cir. 2005 ). T he y also des cribe the Ch ief’s p os itio n as n e a r t h e t op of th e ID O T h ier ar c h y, sin c e itis f our rungs bel ow the S ecr eta ry . T h is m ay depend o n10 N o. 09

- 1567

w hetherthe gl ass i s hal f

- fullor hal f

- em pty: ea ch r ung has quit e a fe w posi ti ons ( f orexam ple , the Se cre tar y o ver see s fi ve divi si ons and fi ve offi ces, and then the Di vi si on of H ighw ays h as ten differen t bu reau s). W e co uld g o on, but the b estthatwe coul d do f or M os s w ou ld b e to fin d th at th e C h ief’s d isc re tio n is su ffici entl y c i rcum scr ibed and hi s a uthor i ty re m ove d enough fro m th e c on fid en tia l or p olic ym ak in g re alm w ith in I DO T that the j ob shoul d have be en co vered by Rut an an d the Pe r so nne l C od e. Ope r at i ngo n tha t as su m pti o n, h ow ev er , w e s t i l l n ee d to as k w h et h er it w as cle ar ly est abl i shed at the t i m e the defendants fi re d M oss that su cha n a cti on wo ul d v i o l at e hi s F i r stAm en dm en t ri ghts. S ee Pears on, s upra; Sa uc i e rv. Katz, 53 3 U .S. 194, 20 1 ( 2001 ) ; se e a l so Putre l l v . M as on, 52 7 F

. 3d 615, 62 1 ( 7th C ir. 2008) ( “ T he rel evan t, d ispositive inqu iry in d eterm i ni ng wh ethera ri ght i s clea rly es tabl i shed i s whether i t woul d b e cl ea r t o a rea son ab l e o ffi ce r tha t hi s co nductw as unl awfuli n the s i tu at i o n h e co nfr o nt ed. ”)

. The cour t thus cannot re l y o n the bro ad p ro posi ti on that the F i rs t Am end m en t pr ote cts aga i nst c er tai n pol i ti cal patro nage fi rings; i t m ust i nstea d lo ok t o see i fthe vi ol ati on was cl eari n the speci fic context ofthe case . S ee Bore l l o v. Al l i s on, 44 6 F .3 d 74 2, 75 0 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). Th is do e s n otn e c e s s a r i l y r e qu i r e the p l a i nt i fft o fi nd a fac tu ally ind ist in gu ish ab le c a s e o n p oin t, bu t if th er e is no s uch case , then he nee ds to o ff er a di ff er ent e xplanati on f orwh y the co nsti tuti onalvi ol ati on i s o bvi ou s. S ee Fl e nne rv. Sh e ahan , 107 F.3d 459 , 465 (7th C ir. 1997). I n con c l ud i ng tha t the defendants r eas onabl y b el i eve d th at th eir d ischa rge of M oss w as la w fu l, th e d istri ct cou rtN o. 09

- 1567 11 emphas i ze d tha t th eyr el i ed o n CM S ’ s des i g na ti o n o fthe Si gn Shop Ch i ef posi ti on as exem pt. CM S re ached th is c o nc l us i o n b y u s i ngc r i t e r i a crea t e d b y i t s o ut s i de l ega l co unsel

. Thi s i s o ne f acto r th at m i l i tat es i n f avo r ofgr anti ng qual i fi ed i m m unity. S ee D avi s v. Zi rk elba ch, 149 F. 3d 6 14, 61 9- 21 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( ci ti ng H ar l ow v. Fi tzge r al d, 457 U

. S. 800, 819 (1982 ))

. I t is not, how e v e r, di s po s i t i v e , p a r t i c ul a r l y h e r e wh e r e we h a v e a l re ady f ound that the j ob de sc riptio n on which bo th co unsel an d CM S r el i ed was i nc o nc lusi ve . F ur th er m o r e, the w ei ght that w e pla ce on CM S’ s re l i ance on advic e of counseldepend s o n f acto rs l i ke how m uch i nfor m ati on counselhad an d how cl ose l y t ai l or ed the advi ce was t o th e po si ti o n i n que st i o n. It i s t el l i ng tha t CM S had cl ass i fi ed the Ch i ef’ s pos i ti on as e xe m pt unde r b o th Rut an an d th e P er so n n el C od e in 1992 , j us t tw o years after Rut an w as d ec id e d

. T h e r e is t hu s n o ta w h i ffo fs u s p i c i o n th a te i th e r C MS o r I DOT was mani pu la tingthe j o b des cr i pti o n b ec au se o fa ny i n t e r e s tth a tth e i n c u m b e n ta d m i n i s t r a t i o n a tth e t i me o fMo s s ’ s fi r i ngmi g hth a v e h a d in e xp a nd i ngthe s c o pe o f i t s o wn p o l i t i c a l p a t r o n a g e . I t i s a l s o t e l l i n g, g i v e n t he unfo rtuna te n um bero fpol i ti calpatr onag e ca ses that have ar i sen o verthe yea rs , th at M oss cannotpoi nt to an y c l o se l y a na l o g o us c as e to s uppo r t hi s ar g um en t. The Si gn S hop Chief’ s pos i ti on l i es som ew h er e between the e xtre m es that have dom i nated o u r case s i n thi s a re a. Se e R i l ey, 4 2 5 F

. 3 d a t3 5 9 ( c ha r t )

. Gi v e n the u nc e r t a i nty that l i ti gants enco u n teri n thi s s om ew hat m urkyar ea of the l aw , i t i s di ffi cul t f ora pla i nti ffto avo i d a qua l i fi ed12 N o. 09

- 1567 i m m unity defense i n a c ase o ffi rs t i m press i on unl ess sh e occu p ies a l ow run g on th e bu reau cratic ladd er. W e co ncl ud e, ther ef or e, thatthe defe nd ants M oss has sued w er e e nti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m u n ity

. Thi s l eave s onl y o ne l oo se en d to ti e up. The qual i fi ed i m m unity defe nse pr ote cts gov er nm entaldefendants fro m an a c t i o n f o r mo n e y d a ma g e s , b u tn o tfr o m a s u i tf o r i nj uncti ve re l i ef

. I nitial l y, M oss was ask i ng f oran inj uncti on a s wel l as dam age s. H e has notpursued hi s r equest f oran inj uncti on o n appeal, however, a n d so we deem i t f o r f ei ted. F o r the se r ea so ns , the j udg m en t o fthe d ist ric t c ou rtis A FFI RMED
.

8- 2- 10