2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
6-9-2005 

# Hi ll v . C ity of S cr ant on P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 02-3833

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Hi ll v . C ity of S cr ant on" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 924. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/924PREC EDENTIAL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

______________ N os . 02- 3833/ 3988 & 03- 1377

_____________ P HYL L I S HI L L ; RO BE RT K. M UR RA Y; DONAL D HI CK E Y; P AUL W. GR AHAM

v. C IT Y O F S C R A N T O N ; JA M E S P . C O N N O R S , In d iv id u a lly

and as m ay or , C i t yof Scr ant on P h y l l i s Hi l l a n d P a u l Gr a h a m, A ppel l ant s - N o. 02- 3833

P HYL L I S HI L L ; RO BE RT K. M UR RA Y; DONAL D HI CK E Y; P AUL W. GR AHAM

v. CI TY O F SCR A N TO N ; J A M ES P. CO N N O RS, I ndi vi dual l yand as M ay or , C i t yof Scr ant on Phy l l i s H i l l , D onal d H i ckey a n d P a u l W
. Gr a h a m, A ppel l ant s - N o. 03- 13772 P HYL L I S HI L L ; RO BE RT K. M UR RA Y; DONAL D HI CK E Y; P AUL W. GR AHAM

v. C IT Y O F S C R A N T O N ; JA M E S P . C O N N O R S , In d iv id u a lly

and as m ay or , C i t yof Scr ant on D o n a l d H i c k e y, A ppel l ant
- N o. 02- 3988

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 01- cv- 00744 ) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E
. Jo n es, II I

A r gued on Sept ember3, 2003 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , N Y G A A R D and R O T H C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 9, 2005) C ynt hi a L. Pol l i ck, E s qui r e ( A r gue d) T h e E m p loym en t L aw F irm 126 Sout h M ai n St r eet , Sui t e 201 Pi t t s t on, PA 18640 C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llan ts

J os eph G

. Fer gus on, E s qui r e ( A r gue d) R o se n n , Je n k in s & G re e n w a ld 120 W y om i ng A venue Scr ant on, PA 18503 C ouns el forA ppel l eesT he D i s t r i ctC our ts ubs equent l ygr ant ed part i al 1 su m m aryjud g m en t i n fa v o r of the c ityin the fo u rth o ff icer’s case bu tt hat cas e i s not before us. 3 O P I N I O N

R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge Si nce 1980, t he ci t yof Scr ant on, Penns y l vani a, has m ai nt ai ned an or di nance r equi r i ng ci t yempl oy ees t o r es i de w ith in the city . In 1 9 9 7 , a g rou p o f tw en ty -tw o p o li ce o ff icers s oughtt o have the or di nance decl ar ed uncons t i tut i onal

. T he U .S . D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia d ism iss e d th e su it an d w e a f f irm e d . A f

ter a n in v e stig a tio n in 20 00 , t he cityt erm i nated fou r of these of fi cers , as w el l as a pol i ce mechani c, w ho w as nota part yt o t he 1997 s ui t , for fa il ing to co m p lyw ith the o rdin an ce . T h e term inated o ff icers b ro u g h t a n e w su it, a lleg in g th a t th e c ityh a d in f rin g e d th e ir Fi r s tA m endmentfr eedom t o pet i t i on the governm entand had vi ol at ed thei rr i ghtt o equal pr ot ect i on of the l aw s by e n f o rc in g th e o rd in a n c e a g a in st th e m in re talia tio n f o r th e ir par t i ci pat i on i n t he 1997 s ui t
. T he mechani c al s o br ought s ui t , al l egi ng t hathe w as t erm i nat ed i n r et al i at i on for c o m p lain in g a b o u t th e c o n d iti o n o f th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

P u b lic W o rks g ara g e. T h ree o f th e f o u r of fice rs’ case s w ere c o n s o lid a te d f

o r p re -t ri a l p u rp o s e s w ith th e m e c h a n ic ’s c a s e . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the cityo n the th ree o ff

icers’ claim s b u t al low ed the m ec h an ic’s c laim s to p ro c e e d to trial. 1 W e conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d nothave gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton t he pol i ce of fi cer s ’ r et al i at i on cl ai m . T he off

i cer s pr es ent ed enough e vi dence t o r ai s e a d isp u te o f

m a ter ial f

a c t as to w h e th e r th e c ityim p e rm iss ib ly targe ted th e 1 9 9 7 p lai n ti ff s. F ir st an d fo rem o st, the o ff icers pr es ent ed evi dence t hatot herci t yempl oy ees , w ho w er e not par t i es t o t he 1997 s ui t , w er e perm i t t ed t o keep thei rj obsT hus , w e af fi r m the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o gr ant 2 s um m aryj udgm enton H i ckey ’ s cl ai m underthe A m er i cans w i t h D i s abi l i t i es A ct
. W e al s o hol d t hatthe off i cer s w ai ved t hei rcl ai m t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed as m ootvar i ous di s coverym ot i ons pendi ng atthe t i m e the d is tr ic t c o u rt re n d e re d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e c ity. T he off i cer s ’ pas s i ng r efe r ence t o t hi s cl ai m i n t he “St at ement of I s s ues ForR evi ew ” i n t hei ropeni ng br i ef doe s nots uffi ce to b ri n g it b e f

o re th is c o u rt
. Se e Ko

p e c v . T a te , 361 F. 3d 772, 7 7 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T h e o rd in a n c e p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt: 3 Sect i on 2. O n oraft erM ar ch 1, 1980, any new empl oy ee of

the C i t yof Scr ant on w ho i s nota r es i dentof the C i t yof Scr ant on at

4 d e s p ite th e c ity’s k n o w le d g e th a t th e yw e re n o t c ity re s id e n ts
. F urther, i ti s und i sputed that, pri or t o the officer s’ t erm i nat i ons i n 2000, no ci t yempl oy ee ha d everbeen f i r ed for n o n -c o m p lia n c e w ith th e re s id e n c yo rd in a n c e . W e f u rth e r h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n o r o th e rw ise e rr in d e n y in g O f f ice r H ick e ylea v e to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t to a d d a d u e p ro c e ss c laim th a t h is p o stt erm i nat i on M uni ci pal Ser vi ce Com m i s s i on hear i ng has been unr eas onabl ydel ay ed. W e al s o r ej ectthe off i cer s ’ cont ent i on t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yand unnec es s ar i l yent er ed a fi nal j udgm enton J anuary8, 2003. Fi nal l y , w e r ej ectw i t hout su b sta n tiv e d isc u ss io n a ll o f th e re m a in in g iss u e s ra ise d in t hese ap peals

. 2

II. F a cts and P roce dural H i s t ory I n 1997, a gr oup of tw enty - t w o Scr ant on pol i ce offi cer s fi l ed a c om pl ai ntal l egi ng thatthe ci t y ’ s r es i dency o rd in a n c e w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a l o n its f a c e a n d a s a p p lie d

. W ith c e rta in e x c e p tio n s, th e o rd in a n c e re q u ire s a ll city empl oy ees t o m ai nt ai n a “bona

- fi de r es i dence ” w i t hi n t he c o rp o ra te lim its o f

S c ra n to n d u ri n g th e irtim e o f e m p lo ym e n t. See Scr ant on, Pa. , Fi l e of the C ounci l N o. 17 § 2 ( Feb. 27, 1 9 8 0 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d th e c o m p lain t in

3t he t i m e of the comm ence m entof empl oym ents hal l have s i x ( 6) m ont hs fr om t he t i m e of c om m ence m entof empl oym entt o acqui r e a bona

- fi de r es i dence w i t hi n t he corpor at e l i m i t s of the C i t y . Such r es i dence m us tbe mai nt ai ned d u rin g c o n tin u o u s e m p lo ym e n t b yth e c ity orbe a c aus e fori m m edi at e t erm i nat i on of t he empl oym entr el at i ons hi p betw een the C i t yof Scr ant on and the new empl oy ee. T he di s t r i ctcour tr el i ed hea vi l yon McC ar thy v. 4 P hi l adel phi a C i vi lSer vi ce Com m is s i on , 4 2 4 U
. S
. 6 4 5 , (19 7 6 ), af f i r m i ng339 A
. 2d 634 ( Pa. C om m w . C t
. 1975)

. T he Supr eme C our ti n McC ar thy r efus ed t o cons i dera fa ci al c o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e to a sim ilar r e sid e n c yre q u ire m e n t, c on c l ud i ng t ha tt he r e qu i r e mentw a s no ti r r a t i on a l

. 42 4 U. S. at646- 47. 5 D ece m berof 1997. T he courtr ej ect ed the off i cer s ’ fac i al due pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on chal l enges t o t he or di nance , h o ld in g , am o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t th e o rd in a n c e w a s ra tio n a lly r el at ed t o one orm or e l egi t i m at e governm entpurpos es and th a t th e ter m “ b o n a -f

id e re sid e n c e ” is n o t u n c o n stitu tio n a lly v a g u e b e c a u se it i s s yn o n ym o u s w ith “ leg a l d o m icile ,” a w e llunder s t ood l egal conce pt
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o hel d t hat 4 t he off i cer s ’ as - appl i ed and pr ocedur al due pr oces s chal l enges w e re n o t rip e f

o r a d ju d ica tio n . T h e o f

f ice rs a lleg e d th a t, des pi t e the or di nance ’ s gener al appl i cabi l i t y , onl ypol i ce offi cer s had r ece i ved thr eat s of i m pendi ng enfor cementand r eques t s fordocument s es t abl i s hi ng r es i dency

. H ow ever , the D i s t r i ctC our tr eas oned thatnone of thes e cl ai m s w er e r i pe beca us e the ci t yhad noty etform al l yenfor ced the or di nance agai ns tanyempl oy ee orgr oup of empl oy ees , norhad the o ff icers allege d that w aive rs ha d b ee n g ran ted in an arb itrary ordi s cr et i onarym anner . W e af fi r m ed i n an unpubl i s hed d e c is io n . Kr eis cherv. C i t y of Scr ant on , N o . 9 8 -74 3 9 (3d C ir

. Ju n e 1 6 , 1 9 9 9 ). In late D ec em b er 1 9 9 7 , sh o rt lyaf ter th e D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed the pol i ce of

fi cer s ’ chal l enge, the C i t yC ont r ol l erSect i on 5 of the r es i dencyor di nance pr ovi des that 5

“ [ t]h e C o n tro ller o f

th e C ityo f

S c ra n to n m a y , fr o m tim e to tim e , . . . re q u ire a d e q u a te p ro o f o f b o n a -f id e re sid e n c e w ith in t he C i t yof Scr ant on. ” Scr ant on, Pa. , Fi l e of Counci l N o. 17, § 5. 6 i s s ued a mem or andum t o al l ci t yempl oy ees r eques t i ng d o cu m en tat ion an d af

fid av it s v erify ing ea ch em p loy ee ’s r es i dency

. I n O ct ober1999, s ever al m ont hs aft erw e had

5 a f f irm e d th e d ism iss a l, th e c itya n d th e p o lice u n io n a g re e d to i ncorpor at e the r es i dencyor di nance i nt o t he new col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement( C B A ) , w hi ch w as r at i fi ed l at erthat m ont h. T he C B A s peci fi ed thatthe t erm “bona f i de res i den ce” m eans “sole l egal r esi den ce or do m i ci l e. ” Ital so p ro v id e d f

o r a six -m o n th g ra c e p e rio d f o r a ll p o lice o f

f ice rs to come i nt o compl i ance . W hi l e the pr eci s e l anguage var i ed, the r es i dencyor di nance w as al s o i ncorpor at ed i nt o other col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement s betw een the ci t yand other u n io n s re p re s e n tin g c ity e m p lo y e e s . In M ay2 0 0 0 , the c ityh ir ed a p ri v ate inv esti g ati o n firm t o i nves t i gat e ce r t ai n empl oy ees w ho w er e s us pect ed of l i vi ng o u tsid e th e c ity . T h e c ityin iti a llyse n t a list o f e ig h t n a m e s to t he i nves t i gat or , s even of w hom w er e pol i ce of

fi cer s w ho had s u e d th e c ity in 1 9 9 7 a n d o n e o f w h o m w a s a f

ir e f ig h te r. U l t i m at el y , betw een 2000 a nd 2001, the ci t yi nves t i gat ed a b o u t 2 5 in d iv id u a ls b u t o n lyter m in a ted f iv e : D o n a ld H icke y , P h y ll is H il l, P au l G rah am , Jaso n G n all , an d R o b ert M u rray . H icke y , H il l, G rah am , an d G n all w ere p o li ce o ff icers i nvol ved i n t he 1997 s ui tagai ns tthe ci t y . A l l w er e off er ed p re -te rm in a tio n h e a rin g s w ith th e m a y o r. H ick e ya n d G n a ll s oughtpos t
- t erm i nat i on hear i ngs befor e the M uni ci pal S e rv ice C o m m iss io n o f th e C ityo f

S c ra n to n b u t as o f

e a rly 20 04 had y ett o recei ve thei r hear i ng s. I n A pr i l 2001, H i ckey , H i l l , G r aham, and M urr ay br oughtt hi s s ui tunder42 U
. S. C
. § 1983 agai ns tthe ci t yof S cra n ton an d M ay o r Jam es C o n n o rs (he reina fter the “c ity ”), al l egi ng among ot herthi ngs thatthe ci t ys el ect i vel yenfor ced t he r es i dencyor di nance agai ns tthem i n r et al i at i on forG nal l br oughta s i m i l ars ui ts om et i m e l at er , butthat 6 case w as not consoli dated w i t h the ot hers. T h e a p p ell an ts do n o t cl aim that the D istri ct C o u rt 7 sh o u ld h a v e g ra n ted th e ir m o tio n s f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, onl yt hati ts houl d nothave gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent a g a i n s tt h e m. 7 exer ci s i ng t hei rFi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . H i ckey , H i l l , and 6 G r aham al l eged thatt he ci t yr et al i at ed aga i ns tthem for s ui ng t he ci t yi n 1997, w hi l e M urr ayal l eged thatthe ci t yt erm i nat ed hi m forcompl ai ni ng aboutthe condi t i on of the D epart m entof P u b li c W o rks g ara g e. In Ju ly2 0 0 1 the D istri ct C o u rt c o n so lid a ted th e se c a se s f o r a ll p re trial p u rp o se s. In Ju ly 2 0 0 2 , th e p a rt ie s f

ile d c ro s s -m o tio n s f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. In H icke y ’s brief

o p p o sing the c ity ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t, he a rg u e d f

o r th e f irst tim e th a t th e len g th yd e lay i n h is p o st-te rm in a tio n M u n icip a l S e rv ice h e a rin g v io late d h is r i ghtt o pr ocedur al due pr oces s . I n Sept ember , 2002 t he D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e c ity ag ains t H icke y , H il l, an d G rah am b u t den ied s u m m ary j udgm entw i t h r es pectt o M urr ay ’ s cl ai m s . T he courtdeni ed the p lai n ti ff

s’ m o ti o n s fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. T h e c o u rt t r eat ed H i ckey ’ s new ar gum entconce r ni ng pos t
- t erm i nat i on hear i ng del ayas a cons t ruct i ve mot i on t o amend hi s compl ai nt and gave t he part i es addi t i onal t i m e t o br i ef the i s s ue w hether leav e to a m en d sh o u ld b e g ran ted. In O ctob er 2 0 0 2 , the c o u rt deni ed l eave t o amend aft erfi ndi ng thatthe amendm ent w oul d be fut i l e and w oul d be made i n bad fa i t h. H i l l and G r aham appeal ed the Sept ember2002 or derand H i ckey app eal ed b oth the S eptem ber and O ct ob er or ders. 7 I n N ovember2002 t he ci tyfi l ed a mot i on forpart i al fin al j u d g m en t pu rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 54( b)

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed thi s m ot i on overthe pl ai nt i ffs ’ oppos i t i on, r eas oni ng thata fi nal j udgm entunder R ul e 54( b) w as nece s s aryt o t erm i nat e H i ckey , H i l l , and G r aham’ s cl ai m s beca us e the Sept emberor derw as notfi nal as t o M ur r ay ’ s cl ai m s . H i l l , H i ckey , and G r aham appeal ed t hi s deci s i on as w el l

. W e cons ol i dat ed al l of the appe al s for p u rp o se s o f

o ra l ar g u m e n t an d re so lv e a ll o f th e m in th isP u rsua n t t o R u le 54 (b), “the c o u rtm ayd ir ec t th e e n try 8 of a f i nal j udgm entas t o one orm or e butfew erthan al l of the cl ai m s orpar t i es onl yupon an expr es s det erm i nat i on that t her e i s no j us tr eas on fordel ayand upon an e xpr es s di r ect i on forthe entr yof j udgm ent
. ” H ow ever , “[i ] n t he abs ence of s uch det erm i nat i on and di r ect i on, anyor der

. . . w hi ch adj udi cat es few ert han al l the cl ai m s orthe r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of fe w ert han al l the part i es s hal l nott erm i nat e the act i on as t o anyof the cl ai m s orpart i es , and the or derorot her form of dec i s i on i s s ubj ectt o r evi s i on atanyt i m e bef or e the e n tryo f ju d g m e n t ad

ju d ica tin g a ll th e c laim s a n d th e rig h ts an d li ab il it ies o f a ll the p arti es.” F ed

. R
. C iv. P. 54 (b). 8 opi ni on.

I I . Juri s di ct i on T he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on ov er the p l ai nti ffs’ fede r al cl ai m s and pende nts t at e cl ai m s under28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1331 and 1367, r es pect i vel y . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi nal deci s i ons pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. A s not ed, thi s cas e i nvol ves cons ol i dat ed ap p ea ls. B ec au se th e o ff icers’ ap p ea l of

the D istri ct C o u rt ’s J anuary2003 R ul e 54( b) or deri m pl i cat es ourj ur i s di ct i on overt he off

i cer s ’ ot herappea l s w e cons i deri ti n t hi s s ect i on. F ederal R ule of C i vil P rocedu re 54(b) pr ov i des a m echa ni s m forr ender i ng a part i al fi nal j udgm entas t o s om e, butnotal l , par t i es orcl ai m s i n a s i ngl e ac t i on. See Ber cke l ey 8 In v . G ro u

p , L td . v. C o lkitt , 2 5 9 F .3 d 1 3 5 , 1 4 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W i t houta val i d R ul e 54( b) or der , w e do notor di nar i l yhave appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overa di s t r i ctcour tor derthatr es ol ves few ert han al l t he cl ai m s of al l the part i es i n a s i ngl e ac t i on beca us e s uch or der s do notcons t i tut e “f i nal deci s i ons ” per28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1
. Id

. A s expl ai ned bel ow , w e hol d t hatthe di s t r i ctcour tpr oper l ydi r ect ed entr yof part i al fi nal j udgm ent i n t hi s cas e. A ccor di ngl y , w e have j ur i s di ct i on overal l of the con sol i dated app eal s.9 T h e o f f ice rs c laim th a t R u le 5 4 (b ) is n o t ap p lica b le her e bec aus e the thr ee c as es br oughtbythe off i cer s and R ober tM ur r ay ’ s cas e had be en cons ol i dat ed onl y“for di s coverypurpos es . ” A ccor di ng t o t he off i cer s , ther efor e, the S eptem ber and O ct ob er 2002 orders t erm i nated three of these fo u r ca ses a n d the D istri ct C o u rtlack ed juri sd ict ion to en ter a s e p a ra te f

in a l ju d g m e n t in th e s e c a s e s in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 3
. H o w e v e r, th e o f

f ice rs’ a rg u m e n t d e p e n d s o n w h a t ap p e a rs to be a de l i ber at e mi s r eadi ng of the r ecor d. I n J ul y2001 t he D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed that“the fourcas es s hal l be co n so li d ated fo r al lpr etr i alpr ocee di ngs , w i t h a det erm i nat i on to b e m ad e a t th e f

inal p retri al co n fe ren ce as to w h ethe r th ere w il l be m o re tha n o n e tri al. ” (E m p h asis ad d ed

. ) T h e c o u rt f u rth e r p ro v id e d th a t “a ll fo u r c a se s a re c o n so lid a ted in to 4: C V
- 01- 0744 as t he s ur vi vi ng cas e. ” Thus, the fourcas es w er e notcons ol i dat ed onl yfordi s coverypurpos es — they w er e cons ol i dat ed for“al l pr etr i al pr ocee di ngs , ” i ncl udi ng su m m a ryju d g m e n t p ro c e e d in g s. T h u s, a s th e c ityc o rre c tly ar gues , a part i al fi nal j udgm entunderR ul e 54( b) w as n e c e s s a r yt o t e r mi n a t e Hi c k e y , Hi l l , a n d Gr a h a m’ s c l a i ms b ec au se th e S ep tem b er 2 0 0 2 o rde r gra n ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t t o the c ityw as n o t fi n al as to M u rray ’s claim s. If t he D i s t r i ctC our thad notent er ed part i al fi nal j udgm ent pur s uantt o R ul e 54( b) i n J anuary2003, w e w oul d nothave had j ur i s di ct i on overt he off i cer s ’ appea l s of the Sept ember a n d O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 o rd e rs . See Ber cke l ey I nv. G r oup , 259 F. 3d a t 1 3 9 -4 0 ; se e a lso In re U n isy s C o rp . R e tire e Me d . B e n e fit “ER I SA ” Li t ig. , 2 4 2 F
. 3 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). W e a ff irm th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to e n ter p a rtial f in a l ju d g m e n t in J anuary2003. I V . St andards of R evi ew W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rd e r g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to th e c ity. A s s af v. F i elds , 178 F. 3d 170, 171 ( 3d C i r . 1999)

. A ccor di ngl y , w e appl ythe s a m e te s t th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rts h o u ld h a v e a p p lie d

. C hi pol l i ni v. Spence rG i

f t s , I nc. , 8 1 4 F
. 2 d 8 9 3 , 8 9 6 (3d C ir

. 1987) ( en banc )

. W e r evi ew the r ecor d as a w hol e, “dr aw [i ng] al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favorof the nonm ovi ng par t y ” butnotw ei ghi ng the evi dence orm aki ng10 c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s . R eev es v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r ods

. , I nc. , 5 3 0 U
. S
. 1 3 3 , 1 5 0 (20 0 0 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). If w e det erm i ne that“ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac t ” and thatt he movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof law , w e w il l aff

irm the d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t. F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). W e re v iew th e D istric t C o u rt' s d e n ial o f lea v e to a m e n d H ic k e y ’s c o m p la in t f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Lum v. B ank of A m er i ca 361 F. 3d 217, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2004)

. W hether th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlye n ter e d f in a l ju d g m e n t p u rsu a n t to F e d

. R. Ci v . P
. 5 4 ( b ) i s a ma t t e ro f l a w th a twe r e v i e w de novo . B er cke l ey I

nv. G r oup , 259 F. 3d at140. I V . D i s cus s i on A . T he O f

f i cer s ’ Fi r s t A m endm ent and E qual P rot ect i on Cl a i ms T he off i cer s al l ege thatthe ci t yt erm i nat ed them not beca us e theyfai l ed t o compl yw i t h t he r es i dencyor di nance b u t b e c a u se th e ye x e rc ise d th e ir F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h t to pet i t i on t he governm entbys ui ng the ci t yi n 1997. W e fol l ow a w e ll-es tab lish e d th re e -ste p tes t to e v a lu a te a p u b lic e m p lo y e e ’s c laim o f

re talia tio n f

o r e n g a g in g in a c tiv ity p ro te c te d u n d e r t h e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. See Baldas s ar e v. Stat e of N ew Jer s ey , 2 5 0 F .3 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 5 -9 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); San F i l i ppo v. B ongi ovanni , 3 0 F
. 3 d 4 2 4 , 4 3 0 -31 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ); Ho ld e rv . Ci t

y o f Al l e n t o wn , 9 8 7 F
. 2 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 4 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ). F irst, th e e m p lo y e e m u st s h o w th a t th e a c tiv ityis in f a c t p ro te c te d

. P i cke r i ng v. B d. of E duc. , 391 U
. S. 563 ( 1968)

. Second, t he empl oy ee musts how thatthe pr ot ect ed ac ti v ity“w as a su b stan ti al fa ctor in th e a ll eg ed retali atory act i on. ” Mt. H

e a lth y C ity S c h . D ist. B d . o

f E d u c . v. D o

y le , 429 U
. S. 274, 287 ( 1977)

. T hi r d, the empl oy erm aydefe atthe em ploy ee’s cl ai m bydem on strat i ng that the sam e adv ers e act i on w oul d have t aken pl ace i n t he abs ence of the pr ot ect ed c o n d u c t. I

d. T h e o f f ice rs f u rth e r a lleg e th a t th e c ityv io late d th e ir rig h t to e q u a l p ro tec tio n o f th e law s u n d e r th e F o u rte e n thT h e o f f ice rs s e e k to p ro v e th e se c o n d p ro n g o f th e ir 9 equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m bypr ovi ng thei rFi r s tA m endment cl ai m . C onver s el y , t he off i cer s ’ m os ts i gni fi cantevi dence su p p o rtin g th e ir F irst A m e n d m e n t cla im is th a t o th e r sim ilarly s i tuat ed ci t yempl oy ees w ho di d notpart i ci pat e i n t he 1997 sui tw ere nott erm i nated. T his sam e evidence w ou l d als o sa tisf yth e o f f ice rs’ b u rd e n o f

p ro o f o n th e f irst p ro n g o f

th e ir e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m. 11 A m end m ent bysel ect i velyenfo rci ng the o rdi nan ce aga i nst th e m w h ile f

a ili n g to ter m in a te o th e r sim ilarlysitu a ted c ity empl oy ees w ho di d notbr i ng s ui ti n 1997. A s not ed above , w e a f f irm e d th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f th e 1 9 9 7 c laim t hatt he r es i dencyor di nance vi ol at ed the equa l pr ot ect i on cl aus e on i t s fac e. H ow ever , di s cr i m i nat oryenfor cementof a fac i al l yval i d l aw i s al s o uncons t i tut i onal underthe equa l p ro te c tio n c la u s e . Y

i ck W o v. H opki ns , 118 U
. S. 356, 373- 74 (1 8 8 6 ); H

older , 987 F. 2d at197 ( appl y i ng Yi c k Wo to a c laim o f d i s c r i mi n a t o r ye n f

o r c e me n to f

a r e s i d e n c yo r d i n a n c e )

. To est abli sh t heirsel ect i ve en forcem ent cl ai m , the o ffi cers m ust d em o n str ate 1 ) th at oth er sim il arlysitu ated em p loy ee s w ere nott erm i nat ed des pi t e thei rnon- compl i ance w i t h t he or di nance and 2) t hatt hi s s el ect i ve tr eatm entw as bas ed on an
“ u n j u s t i f i a b l e s t a n d a r d , s u c h a s r a c e , o rr e l i g i o n , o rs o me ot herarbi t r aryfac t or , . . . ort o pr eventthe exe r ci s e of a fundament al r i ght

. ” H

older , 987 F. 2d at197 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed S ta tes v . Sc h o o lcr a

ft , 879 F. 2d 64, 68 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). H e re , the o f f ice rs s e e k to d e m o n stra te t hatt he ci t ys i ngl ed them out forexer ci s i ng thei rfundament al Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o pet i t i on the governm entw hen they b ro u g h t s u it a g a in s t th e c ity in 1 9 9 7
. T he off i cer s ’ Fi r s tA m endmentand Equal Pr ot ect i on c laim s a re f

u n c tio n a llyid e n tica l an d it w o u ld b e re d u n d a n t to tre a t th e m se p a ra tely

. A s a lea d in g tre a tise e x p lain s, “ [ i]t is 9 gener al l yunnece s s aryt o anal y ze l aw s w hi ch bur den the exer ci s e of Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s bya cl as s of per s ons undert he equa l pr ot ect i on guar ant ee, beca us e the s ubs t ant i ve gu arant ees of the A m end m ent s erve as the st rongest p ro tec tio n a g a in st th e lim itatio n o f th e se rig h ts.” R o n a ld Ro tu n d a & J o h n No wa k , 3 T r e a t i s e o n Co n s t i tu t i o n a l L a w:W e t ook t he s ame appr oach i n San F i l i ppo butdi d not 10 pr ovi de an e xpl anat or ydi s cus s i on beca us e i n t hatcas e “the part i es agree[d] that the an al y si s i s the sam e un der the fir st amendm entand equa l pr ot ect i on cl ai m s . ” 30 F. 3d at430 n. 6. T h is is a c a se -sp e c if

ic d e ter m in a tio n b a se d o n th e f a c ts 11 b e f o re u s, n o t a g e n e ra l p rin c ip le. T h e re m a yw e ll b e c a se s in w h ich e v id e n c e sa tisf

y in g th e “ su b sta n tial f

a c to r” p ro n g is i n s u f f i c i e n tt o r e b u te v i d e n c e d e mo n s t r a t i n g th a tth e s a me adver s e empl oym entact i on w oul d have oc curr ed n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e p ro te c te d a c tiv ity. See, e. g. , TorresR os ado v. R ot

ger - Sabat , 335 F. 3d 1, 13- 14 ( 1s tC i r . 2003) (assu m ing p lai n ti ff ’s ev iden ce sati sfied “su b stan ti al fa ctor” t es tbutgr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o defe ndant s bas ed on uncont es t ed evi dence t hatpl ai nt i ff w oul d have be en 12 Subst ance and Pr ocedur e § 18. 40, at796 ( 3d ed. 1999)

. I f a law p a ss e s m u ste r u n d e r th e F irst A m e n d m e n t itis a lso lik e ly to b e u p h e ld u n d e r t h e E q u a l P ro te c tio n c la u s e . I d. L i kew i s e, if a law v io late s F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h ts th e re is n o n e e d to r es or tt o t he Equal Pr ot ect i on cl aus e t o r edr es s the c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . I d. ; s ee al s o Sher ber tv. V

er ner , 374 U
. S. 398, 410 ( 1963) ( no need t o exami ne equa l pr ot ect i on c laim b a se d o n d e n ial o f u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e f

its to ind ividu als w h o se re li g iou s p ri n ciples p roh ibitS aturd ayw o rk w her e C our thel d s ame pr act i ce unc ons t i tut i onal underfr ee exerci se cl ause). W e w i l l exam i ne the officer s’ F i rs t A m end m ent r et al i at i on cl ai m dir ect l yrather than as a c o mp o n e n to f

t h e i rd e r i v a t i v e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m. 10 T h e f irst p ro n g – w h e th e r th e re lev a n t ac tiv ityis p ro te c te d u n d e r t h e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t – is n o t c o n te s te d h e re . In th is c irc u it, a n ylaw su it b ro u g h t b ya n e m p lo y e e a g a in st a publ i c empl oy erqual i fi es as a pr ot ect ed “pe t i t i on” underthe Fi r s tA m endments o l ong as i ti s not“s ham l i t i gat i on. ” San F i l i ppo , 30 F. 3d at443. T he ci t ydoes notar gue thatthe pol i ce of fi cer s ’ 1997 s ui tagai ns tthe ci t yw as a s ham. A s for t he s econd a nd t hi r d pr ongs , w e w i l l cons i derthem t ogether b e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e sa m e e v id e n c e is s u f f icie n t to d e f e a t th e c ity ’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n w ith re sp e c t to eac h pr ong. See San Fi l i ppo , 30 F. 3d at434, 444 ( hol di ng 11t erm i nat ed anyw ay )

. A s thi s cour texpl ai ned i n Suppan v. D adonna , “s ubs t ant i al fac t or ” does notm ean “ dom i nant ” or “pr i m ary ” fa ct or . 203 F. 3d 228, 235 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng V i l l age of A r l i ngt on Hei

ght s v. Metr o. H

ous i ng D eve l opm ent C or p. , 429 U
. S. 252, 265 ( 1977) )

. T hus , even i f a pl ai nt i ff show s that act i vityprot ect ed b ythe F i rs tA m end m ent w as a “s ubs t ant i al fac t or ” i n hert erm i nat i on, the def endantm ay sh o w th a t so m e o th e r f

a c to r u n re late d to th e p ro tec ted a c tiv ity w a s th e b u t- f

o r c a u s e o f

th e te rm in a tio n . I

d. O f cour s e, beca us e the def

endantbear s the bur dens of pr oof and p e rs u a s io n o n th e th ir d p ro n g , San F i l i ppo , 30 F. 3d at430 n. 7, t o pr evai l ats um m aryj udgm enton t hi s pr ong t he def endant m us tpr es entevi dence of s uch qual i t ythatno r eas onabl e j ur or coul d concl ude thatt he pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yw as the but

- for caus e of the t erm i nat i on. 13 t hatevi dence s uppor t i ng pr ofes s or ’ s cl ai m thathi s pr ot ect ed act i vit i es w ere a “subst anti al fact or” i n h i s t erm i nati on al so r ebut t ed empl oy er ’ s cl ai m thatthe pr ofes s orw oul d have be en term inated reg ard less o f h is pro tected ac ti v it ies). W e r ej ectt he off

i cer s ’ cont ent i on thatcour t s m ay n ev er g ran t sum m aryjud g m en t on eith er the sec o n d o r th ir d s t eps of thi s anal y s i s . A l t hough w e have oft en not ed thatthe f irst p ro n g o f

th e F irst A m e n d m e n t re talia tio n tes t p re se n ts q u esti o n s o f law fo r th e c o u rtw h il e the sec o n d an d thir d p ro n g s p re s e n t q u e s tio n s o f f a c t f o r t h e ju ry, e. g. , C ur i nga v. C i t y of C l ai r t on , 357 F. 3d 305, 310 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng B aldassare , 2 5 0 F
. 3 d a t1 9 5 ) , o n l y genui ne ques t i ons of fa ct s houl d be det erm i ned bythe j ury . Forexampl e, i n A m br os e v. Tow ns hi p of R obi ns on, P a. , 3 0 3 F
. 3 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ), w e hel d t hatj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw underR ul e 50( b) s houl d have be en gr ant ed t o t he def endantw her e the pl ai nt i ff f a iled to p re se n t su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e th a t h is p ro tec ted a c tiv ity w a s a su b sta n tial f

a c to r in h is s u sp e n sio n . T h e sa m e p rin c ip le a p p lie s in th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t c o n te x t u n d e r R u le 5 6
. E .g ., W a tters v . C ity o

f P h ila d e lp h ia , 5 5 F
. 3 d 8 8 6 , 8 9 2 (3d C ir

. 1995) ( not i ng D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatpl ai nt i ff made s uffi ci ents how i ng t hats peec h w as s ubs t ant i al fac t or m o ti v ati n g term ination to su b m itq u esti o n to jury ).14 In th is case , the o ff

icers sa ti sfied their ev iden ti ary b u rd e n o n th e “ su b sta n tial f a c to r” p ro n g a n d su f

f icie n tly r ebut t ed the ci t y ’ s evi dence thattheyw oul d have be en ter m in a ted a n yw a y . T h e o f f ice rs’ stro n g e st e v id e n c e su g g e sts th a t se v e ra l n o n -re sid e n t em p lo y e e s w h o d id n o t p a rticip a te in the 1 9 9 7 law su itw ere n o t t erm inated d esp it e the city ’s know l edge orunr ebutt ed s us pi ci ons thattheyl i ved out s i de the c ity. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti n i t s opi ni on gi ves an exa m pl e of s uch an e m pl oy ee. A ft erhol di ng thatthe off i cer s coul d not s ubs t ant i at e thei rcl ai m that“s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed” e m pl oy ees w ere all o w ed to k ee p their j o b s, the c o u rth eld th at R o b ert M u rra yh a d su c c e ss f

u llyd o n e so . M u rra ya lleg e d th a t h is nei ghborR ober tW arner , a fi r efi ght erforthe ci t y , w as not t erm i nat ed eve n t hough theyboth l i ved out s i de the ci t y . T he cour tfound thatw hetherW arneractual l yl i ved out s i de the ci t yand w hethert he ci t yknew of W arner ’ s pos s i bl e noncompl i ance w er e genui ne i s s ues of fa ctforthe j ury . T he cour tt hen det erm i ned, how ever , thatnei t herW arnernorany ot hernon- pol i ce of

fi cercoul d be “s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed” t o t he pol i ce of fi cerpl ai nt i ffs beca us e the l anguage defi ni ng “bonafi de r es i dence ” i n t he pol i ce CB A m ade the C B A m or e s t r i ct t han the r es i dencyor di nance i t s el f. T he courtal s o found that t he ci t yt erm i nat ed the pol i ce of fi cer s beca us e of thei rnoncompl i ance w i t h t he C B A , notbeca us e of thei rnoncompl i ance w i t h t he r es i dencyor di nance . W e conc l ude, ho w ever, t hat the co urterr ed in r eaching b oth conc l usi on s. Fi r s t , bas ed on the r ecor d on appea l , al l ci t yempl oy ees s ubj ectt o t he r es i dencyor di nance ar e “s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed” f or purpos es of the Fi r s tA m endmentanal y s i s . T he or di nance r equi r es al l ci t yempl oy ees t o es t abl i s h a “bona

- fi de r es i dence ” i n t he ci t yof Scr ant on, butdoes notdefi ne the t erm . T he pol i ce CB A expl i ci t l ydefi nes “bona- fi de r es i dence ” t o m ean “ s ol e l egal r es i dence ordom i ci l e. ” H ow ever , t he pol i ce CB A does notpurpor tt o al t eror a u g m e n t th e re s id e n c yo rd in a n c e b yp ro v id in g th is d e f in itio n . I n fac t , t he pol i ce CB A ’ s defi ni t i on of “bona

- fi de r es i dence ” a p p e a r s t o b e l i f

t e d d i r e c t l yf

r o m C ity o

f Me a dv ille , F ir e m e n 's C ivil S e rv ice C o m m iss io n v . N e ff , a P e n n sy lv a n iaI n fac t , i n 1997 t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hat“bona f i de 12 r es i dence ” as us ed i n Scr ant on’ s r es i dencyor di nance w as sy n o n ym o u s w ith “ leg a l d o m icile ,” a n d w e e x p licitlyu p h e ld th is d e te rm in a tio n w h e n w e a f f ir m e d th a t d e c is io n in 1 9 9 9
. Kr eis cherv. C i t

y of Scr ant on , N o . 9 8 -7 4 3 9 , s lip o p . a t n .2
. W e furt hernot e thateven i f the pol i ce CB A i m pos ed 13 s l i ght l ydi ffe r entr es i dencyr equi r ement s than the or di nance , t he pol i ce of

fi cer s w oul d s t i l l be “s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed” t o other ci t yempl oy ees s o l ong as the cor e r es i dencyr equi r ementw as th e s a m e . See Bennun v. R ut gers Stat e U

ni v. , 941 F. 2d 154, 178 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( expl ai ni ng that“s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed” doe s n o t m ea n “ide n ti ca ll ysitu ated ”). 15 C om m onw eal t h C our tdeci s i on cons t rui ng a muni ci pal r es i dencyor di nance . 450 A
. 2d 1078, 1079- 80 n. 3 ( Pa. C om m w . C t
. 1982) ( “R efe r ence t o a bona f i de r es i dence i n a m uni ci pal or di nance es t abl i s hi ng a r es i dencyr equi r ementfor m uni ci pal empl oy ees m eans the s ol e l egal r es i dence or d o m icile o f

th e e m p lo y e e .”) ( c itatio n o m itt e d , em p h a sis a d d e d ). S ee a lso McC a rthy v. P h ila . C ivi l Ser v. C o m m ’n , 339 A .2 d 6 3 4 , 6 3 6 -3 7 (P a . C o m m w . C t. 1 9 7 5 ), af f ' d, 424 U
. S. 645 ( 1976) ( hol di ng t hat“bona f i de r es i dence ” i n m uni ci pal r es i dencyor di nance m eans “domi ci l e, ” and f ur therexpl ai ni ng t hata per s on can ha ve more than one r es i dence butonl yone d o mi c i l e )

. Th u s , t h e r e s i d e n c yr e q u i r e me n ti n th e p o l i c e CBA i s notm or e s t r i ctt han the or di nance – i ti s exac t l ythe s ame. 12 F o r th a t re a so n , the c o u rt e rre d in h o ld in g th a t o th e r c ity e m p lo y e e s w e re n o t sim ilarlysitu a ted to th e o f f ice rs s im p ly b e c a u s e t h e ywe r e n o ts u b j e c tt o th e p o l i c e CB A. 13 Second, t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byfi ndi ng thatthe o f f ice rs w e re ter m in a ted b e c a u se o f th e ir f a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e p o lice C B A ra th e r th a n th e ir f a ilu re to c o m p lyw ith t he or di nance . A s j us texpl ai ned, ther e i s no di ffe r ence betw een the r es i dencyr equi r ement s i m pos ed bythe pol i ce C B A and the or di nance . T he di s t i nct i on m ade bythe D i s t r i ct C o u rt c o u ld still b e re lev a n t, ho w e v e r, to th e e x ten t itre f lec ts t he ci t y ’ s s ubj ect i ve i nt ent
. Forexampl e, the ci t ym i ghtar gue t hat i ton l yi nv est i gated and t erm i nated em ploy ees w ho se u n io n s h a d a g re e d to in c lu d e th e re sid e n c yo rd in a n c e in th e irT he fi r efi ght er s ’ C B A al s o i ncorpor at ed the r es i dency 14 or di nance . T he off i cer s have a l s o att empt ed t o s w el l the r anks of 15 “si m i l arl ysi tuated” em ploy ees byl i st i ng several go l f cou rs e empl oy ees and t empora r ys um m erempl oy ees w ho w er e not ter m in a ted d e sp ite c ityp e rso n n e l re c o rd s s h o w in g th e m to hav e no n-Scranton add res ses. H ow ever, neither of these g rou p s are su b

ject t o the re side n cyo rdin an ce , an d there fo re

16 C B A
. T hi s w oul d s uppl ya non- r et al i at oryexpl anat i on for anyevi dence t hatcert ai n non- r es i dentempl oy ees w er e not t erm i nat ed i f thos e empl oy ees ’ uni ons had notagr eed t o s uch in c lu s io n . U ndert he fa ct s befor e the court , how ever , the ques t i on w hethert he ci t yw as w i l l i ng t o enfor ce the r es i dency or di nance w i t houtt he s uppl ement al author i t yof a c ol l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eementi s a genui ne fa ctual i s s ue thatthe D istri ct C o u rtsh o u ld n o t hav e re so lved at th e su m m ary ju d g m e n t sta g e . In late M a y2 0 0 0 , the c ityse n t lette rs to el even pol i ce of

fi cer s and tw o fi r efi ght er s thr eat eni ng “i m m edi at e t erm i nat i on” i f the r eci pi ent s fai l ed t o pr ovi de updat ed document s and af fi davi t s es t abl i s hi ng thei rr es i dency i n t he ci t y . T hes e l et t er s r efe r r ed t o bot h t he r es i dency or di nance and the r el evantC B A i ncorpor at i ng that o rd in a n c e . H o w e v e r, th e p re -te rm in a tio n lette rs is su e d to

14 H ill, H ic k e y , a n d G ra h a m c ite o n ly th e re s id e n c yo rd in a n c e . Fur t her , ot herevi dence i n t he r ecor d s ugges t s thatthe ci t yw as w i l l i ng t o r el ys ol el yon t he r es i dencyor di nance . For exampl e, i n 1987, l ong befor e the or di nance had bee n i n c o rp o r a t e d i n t o a n y C B A , th e c i t y c o n t r o l l e ri s s u e d a c i t yw i de r eques tfordocument at i on of r es i dencythatthr eat ened te rm in a tio n f

o r n o n -c o m p lia n c e . I n addi t i on t o R ober tW arner , the off i cer s pr ovi ded evi dence t hatatl eas tt hr ee otherci t yempl oy ees – al l pol i ce o f f ice rs w h o d id n o t su e th e c ityin 1 9 9 7 – w e re a llo w e d to r emai n empl oy ed des pi t e the ci t y ’ s know l edge orun- r ebut t ed s us pi ci ons t hatt heyw er e noti n compl i ance w i t h t he r es i dencyor di nance . I n J une 2000, R ayM ount for d, the l ead 15t he o ffi cers cann ot r easona blyargue t hat anyof these e m p lo y e e s a re “ sim ilarlysitu a ted ” to th e m . T h e g o lf c o u rse is oper at ed byt he Scr ant on R ecr eat i on A uthor i t y , an i ndepende ntagenc ynots ubj ectt o t he contr ol of the ci t yof S c ra n to n . See Sm i th v. A thens Tow ns hi p A uth. , 685 A
. 2d 651, 656 ( Pa. C om m w . C t
. 1996) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T he R ecr eat i on A ut hor i t yhas the s ol e author i t yt o hi r e, fi r e, and s e t c o n d itio n s o f

e m p lo ym e n t f

o r i ts e m p lo y e e s . See 53 Pa. C o n s. S tat. § 5 6 0 7 (d ). F u rth e r, S c ra n to n e m p lo y e e s a re o n ly r equi r ed t o l i ve i n t he ci t ydur i ng “cont i nuous empl oym entby t he ci t y . ” Tem por arys um m erempl oy ees ar e bydefi ni t i on not cont i nuous l yempl oy ed bythe ci t y , and ther efor e theyar e not s ubj ectt o t he r es i dencyor di nance . I n s harp contr adi ct i on t o M ount for d’ s t es t i m ony , J ames 16 C onnor s , t he may orof Scr ant on, t es t i fi ed thatthe 2000 in v e stig a tio n re v e a led th a t b o th P e tti n a to a n d G ill e tte liv e d in S c ra n to n . C o n n o rs f

u rth e r te stif

ied th a t th e c itysu b se q u e n tly or der ed a s econd i nves t i gat i on of G i l l ett e bas ed on a t i p t hat h e w a s liv in g o u tsid e th e c ity . A c c o rd in g to C o n n o rs, G ill e tte r et i r ed dur i ng t he s econd i nves t i gat i on. M ount for d t es t i fi ed th a t h e w a s a sk e d to in v e stig a te G ill e tte a se c o n d tim e in A u g u st 2 0 0 1 , b u t th a t h is a ss o c iate h a d a lre a d yd e ter m in e d in 2 0 0 0 th a t G ill e tte liv e d in Je ss u p , P A . E v e n if G ill e tte ul t i m at el yr et i r ed underpr es s ur e, the fa ctthatthe ci t ydel ay ed 17 pr i vat e i nves t i gat orw or ki ng on t he r es i dencyi nves t i gat i on for th e c ity , w a s a sk e d to in v e stig a te p o lice o f f ice rs D o n a ld Pet t i nat o and A nt honyG i l l ett e. J us taft erthe i nves t i gat i on of Pet t i nat o gotunderw ay , how ever , M ount for d w as t ol d bythe ci t yt hatPet t i nat o l i ved i n O l d For ge, Penns y l vani a, thathe w as notm ovi ng back t o t he ci t y , and thatthe i nves t i gat i on sh o u ld b e d isc o n tin u e d . M o u n tf o rd a lso tes tifie d th a t h is as s oci at e det erm i ned bas ed on s urvei l l ance and publ i c r ecor ds t hatG i l l et t e l i ved i n J es s up, Penns y l vani a. M ount for d’ s not es fr om J ul y7, 2000, i ndi cat e thatthe ci t yhad dec i ded t o s et hear i ngs forPet t i nat o, G i l l ett e, and Paul G r aham, one of the appel l ant s i n t hi s cas e. H ow ever , of thes e thr ee onl yG r aham w as t erm i nat ed fornon- compl i ance w i t h t he r es i dency o rd in a n c e a n d it ap p e a rs th a t n o h e a rin g s e v e r to o k p lac e w ith r es pectt o Pet t i nat o and G i l l ett e. 16enfor ci ng t he or di nance agai ns thi m forovera y ear n o n e th e les s s u p p o rts th e o f f ice rs’ p o sitio n . A lso , the o n ly evi dence of G i l l et t e’ s for ced r et i r ementon t hi s r ecor d comes f ro m M a y o r C o n n o rs, a n in ter e ste d w itn e ss . T h e re f o re , this f a c tu a l is s u e c a n n o t b e re s o lv e d o n s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See R eev es v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r oduct s , I nc. , 530 U
. S. 133, 1 4 9 -1 5 1 (2 0 0 0 ) (e x p lain in g th a t w h e n d ra w in g a ll rea so n a b le i nferences i n fav or of t he n on -m ov ant the co urt s m ust di s r egar d evi dence t he j uryi s notr equi r ed t o bel i eve, i ncl udi ng t es t i m onyof i nt er es t ed w i t nes s es ) ( ci t at i ons o m itted). M ount for d expl ai ned thatT obi n w as “pl ay i ng a game” 17 b yp u rpo sef

u ll yelud ing the in v esti g ators. M o u n tfo rd’s r ecor ds i ndi cat e thatT obi n w as obs erved atthr ee di ffe r ent Scr ant on addr es s es , i ncl udi ng the homes of hi s ex- w i fe a nd d a u g h ter , b u t th e in v e stig a to rs c o u ld n o t co n c lu d e th a t T o b in res i ded atanyof these three add res ses. 18 T he off i cer s al s o s how ed thatthe ci t ys us pect ed pol i ce offi cerPat r i ck Tobi n of r es i di ng out s i de the ci t ybutm ayhave cal l ed o ff t he invest i gati on w i t ho ut adequ at el yrebut t i ng tho se su sp icio n s. In Ju n e 2 0 0 0 , the c itya sk e d th e p riv a te in v e stig a to rs to in v e stig a te T o b in , b u t M o u n tf o rd a n d h is as s oci at e w er e neve rabl e t o det erm i ne Tobi n’ s r es i dence des pi t e mul t i pl e day s of s ur vei l l ance overthe cour s e of f our m ont hs

. C i t yr ecor ds cus t odi an C onal l K ol l een l at eraverr ed

17 th a t T o b in n o w re s id e s a t a s p e c if ic a d d re s s in S c ra n to n . H o w e v e r, th e in v e stig a to rs c o n d u c ted su rv e ill a n c e o n th is ad d ress – w h ich M o u n tfo rd id en ti fied as T o b in’s ex -w ife’s h o u s e – a n d c o u ld n o t d e te rm in e w h e th e r T o b in re s id e d th e re .
F o r all the a b o v e re aso n s, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e p lain tiff p o lice o f

f ice rs w e re “ th e o n ly o n e s th a t d id n o t co m e in to c o m p lian c e w ith th e ter m s o f th e ir C B A ” w as an i m pr operr es ol ut i on of a ge nui ne fa ctual d is p u te
. T h e o f f ice rs f u rth e r c o n ten d th a t th e yw e re a c tu a llyin co m p li an ce w ith the re side n cyo rdin an ce . T h e o ff icersHi l l wa s d o mi c i l e d wi t h h e rf a mi l yi n F a c t o r yv i l l e , P A, 18 att he t i m e of he rhi r e as a pol i ce of fi ceri n 1990, and no r eas onabl e fa ct
- fi ndercoul d concl ude thats he cha nged her dom i ci l e mer el ybyr ent i ng an apa r t m enti n Scr ant on and s pendi ng t he ni ghtt her e “oc cas i onal l y . ” H i ckeycl ai m s that he r ece i ved an or al w ai verof the r es i dencyor di nance fr om th e c h ief o f p o lice in 1 9 9 5 , b u t th e o rd in a n c e p ro v id e s th a t a w ai verm ayonl ybe obt ai ned fr om the may or , w i t h t he advi ce a n d c o n s e n t o f

th e c ity c o u n c il. See O rdin an ce , § 4
. F u rth er, hi s at t empt t o come i nt o compl i ance w i t h t he or di nance by m ovi ng i nt o hi s hous e i n t he ci t ythe daybefor e hi s pr et erm i nat i on hear i ng on J une 8, 2000, i s i ns uffi ci ent
. T he M ay 26, 2000, t hr eatl et t eradequa t el yi nform ed H i ckeythathe had unt i l J une 2, 2000, t o come i nt o compl i ance and s uppl ythe r e q u e s t e d p r o o f

o f c o m p l i a n c e t o th e c i t y.

19 cert ai nl ydo notneed t o al l ege orpr ove compl i ance w i t h t he o rd in a n c e to p re v a il o n th e irF ir s t A m e n d m e n t c la im

. D i s cr i m i nat or yenfor cementof a s t atut e oror di nance i s not ju s tif ie d s im p ly b e c a u s e th e e n f o rc e m e n t is o th e rw is e v a lid

. See D esi ' s P izza, Inc. v. C i t

y of W i lkes- B arre , 321 F. 3d 411, 424- 25 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

. E vi dence of the off i cer s ’ compl i ance w i t h t he or di nance w oul d nonethel es s be pow er ful evi dence t hatt hei rt erm i nat i on w as pr e- t extual

. O n t hi s r ecor d, no r eas onabl e fa ct
- fi ndercoul d concl ude thatei t herH i l l or H i ckeycame i nt o compl i ance w i t h t he or di nance w i t hi n t he t i m e p r o v i d e d b y t h e c i t y. 18 G ra h a m , h o w e v e r, sh o u ld b e p e rm itt e d to a rg u e h is c a s e f o r c o m p lia n c e to th e ju ry. A s d is c u s s e d a b o v e , a S c ra n to n e m p lo y e e ’s “ b o n a -f id e re s id e n c e ” is h is d o m ic ile

. In P en n sy lvan ia “[ t] h e d o m ici le of a p erso n is th e p lace w h ere he has vol unt ar i l yfi xed hi s habi t at i on w i t h a pr es enti nt ent i on t o m ake i tei t herhi s perm anenthom e orhi s hom e forthe i ndefi ni t e futur e. ” In re Mc K in ley ' s Esta te , 461 Pa. 731, 734 ( Pa. 1975)

. “A new dom i ci l e ca n be ac qui r ed onl yby phy s i cal pr es ence ata new r es i dence pl us i nt entt o m ake that new r es i dence t he pr i nci pal hom e. ” In re Pren derga st , 673 A
. 2d 324, 327- 28 ( Pa. 1996)

. G r aham has es t abl i s hed thathe becam e do m i ci l ed in Scranton sho rt l yaft er he w as hi red as a p o lice o f f ice r in 1 9 9 3 . It i s th e c ity ’s b u rd e n to d e m o n stra te1 G ra h a m w a s d iv o rc e d f ro m h is f ir s t w if e in 1 9 8 7
. 19 G r aham expl ai ned thataft erhe methi s s econd w i fe, 20 Ja c q u e lin e , b u t b e f

o re th e yw e re m a rrie d , h e m ig h t sta yin h is S crant on apart m ent three ni gh t s a w eek, athis parent s’ ho use i n C l arks Sum m i tonce ortw i ce a w eek, and w i t h J acque l i ne t he r emai nderof the t i m e. I tappea r s G r aham w as never 20 t hatG r aham changed hi s dom i ci l e t o N i chol s on, Penns y l vani a, w hen he r e- m arr i ed i n 1998. See In re 19 P renderg rast , 673 A
. 2d at327- 28 ( not i ng thatthe bur den of s how i ng change d dom i ci l e “r es t s upon w hom everm akes the a lle g a tio n ” ). T h e c ityh a s in tro d u c e d m o re th a n e n o u g h e v id e n c e to m eeti t s bur den. Fi r s tand for emost , the ci t yhas s how n t hat G ra h a m ’s s e c o n d w if

e a n d ste p -c h ild re n w e re d o m icile d in N i chol s on dur i ng al l t i m es r el evantt o thi s di s put e. T he l ocat i on of an i ndi vi dual ' s fami l yi s verys t r ong evi dence of th e lo c a tio n o f

h is d o m icile . In d e e d , the P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our thas defi ned domi ci l e as “the pl ace atw hi ch an i ndi vi dual has fi xed hi s fami l yhom e and pr i nci pal es t abl i s hm entforan i ndefi ni t e per i od of t i m e. ” In re P renderg ast , 673 A
. 2d at327 ( ci t i ng In re D o rr a n c e ’s E sta te , 1 6 3 A . 3 0 3 , 1 7 5 (1 9 3 2 )); s ee al s o I n r e N om i nat i on P et i t i ons of M cInt yre , 7 7 8 A .2 d 7 4 6 (P a . C o m m w . C t. 20 0 1 ). T h e c ity al s o pr ovi ded otherevi dence of cha nged domi ci l e, i ncl udi ng M ount for d’ s t es t i m onythatG r aham’ s Scr ant on apart m ent w a s ju st a “ m a il d ro p ” b e in g u se d b yb o th G ra h a m a n d H ill in an att empt t o achi eve t echni cal compl i ance w i t h t he r es i dency o r d i n a n c e d e s p i t e a c tu a l l y l i v i n g o u t s i d e th e c i t y. N evert hel es s , G r aham has i ntr oduced e nough evi dence t o cr eat e a ge nui ne fa ctual di s put e on thi s i s s ue. G r aham t es t i fi ed thathe moved i nt o Scr ant on w i t hi n s i x m ont hs of b e in g h ire d a s a p o lice o f f ice r in 1 9 9 3 to c o m e in to compl i ance w i t h t he r es i dencyor di nance . H e r ent ed var i ous a p a rtm e n ts th e re u n til a p p ro x im a telysix m o n th s a f ter h is ter m in a tio n in O c to b e r 2 0 0 0 . G ra h a m c laim s th a t h e a n d h is new w i fe l i ved apa r tfr om the t i m e of hi s m arr i age unt i l aft er hi s t erm i nat i on beca us e of hi s j ob. H e expl ai ned thathe 20as ked abouthi s t ypi cal w eekl yr out i ne af t erhe w as m arr i ed. O urconcl us i on on t hi s i s s ue does notcompel a s i m i l ar 21 re su lt i n H ill ’s c a se . H ill w a s d o m icile d in F a c to ryv ill e w ith herow n fami l yand chi l dr en w hen s he w as hi r ed as a pol i ce offi cer . H i l l i s l i s t ed w i t h herhus band on the dee d as s oci at ed w i t h t hatpr oper t y . W hen as ked i f s he s l epti n herScr ant on apart m enton a r egul arbas i s H i l l ans w er ed “no. ” She fol l ow ed bys t at i ng t hats he s l eptther e “oc cas i onal l y , ” but r efus ed t o be more s peci fi c. She w as equal l yvague w hen as ked how oft en s he at e meal s ther e. Fur t her , w hi l e G r aham c laim s th a t h e h a d a p riv a te b e d ro o m in th e sh a re d a p a rtm e n t, H ill c la im s th a t s h e s le p t o n a “ s o f a c o u c h .” 21 neverbel i eved thatm er el yr ent i ng an apa r t m entand pay i ng ci t yt axes w as s uffi ci entt o compl yw i t h t he r es i dency or di nance ; r ather , he thoughthe had t o s t ayi n hi s Scr ant on apart m ent“thr ee t o fi ve” ni ght s a w eek. A thi s pr et erm i nat i on hear i ng G r aham cal l ed fourw i t nes s es w ho a ttes ted th a t th e yw e re G ra h a m ’s n e ig h b o rs w h e n h e liv e d in t h e S c r a n t o n a p a r t m e n ta l s o c l a i m e d b y P h yl l i s H i l l

. F i n a l l y, G r aham cl ai m s t hathi s w i fe s ol el yow ned the N i chol s on hom e. G r aham’ s acc ounti s s el f- s ervi ng and s om ew hat unl i kel y . A per s on’ s i nt entt o change dom i ci l e i s bas ed on “the ac tual s t at e of f

act s , notw hatone dec l ar es them t o be. ” In re Pren derga st , 673 A
. 2d at328. H ow ever , cour t s do not w ei gh evi dence ordet erm i ne cr edi bi l i t yques t i ons atthe s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s ta g e . R eev es v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r ods

. , I nc. , 5 3 0 U .S . 1 3 3 , 1 5 0 (2 0 0 0 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). V iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to G ra h a m , a re a so n a b le f a c t-f in d e r c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t G ra h a m m a d e h is h o m e in Scr ant on w hen he moved t her e af t erbei ng hi r ed as a pol i ce o f f i c e ra n d t h a th e n e v e rma d e Ni c h o l s o n h i s p r i n c i p a l h o me a f ter h e re -m a rrie d b e c a u se h e k n e w th a t if h e d id so h e w o u ld be i n vi ol at i on of the r es i dencyor di nance . 21 T he off i cer s al s o pr es ent ed addi t i onal evi dence of re talia tio n . W ith o u t th e e v id e n c e re g a rd in g sp e c if ic empl oy ees des cr i bed above , w e doubtw hetherthi s addi t i onalR os eann N ovembri no, the C i t yC ontr ol l er , t es t i fi ed 22 t hats he al s o col l ect ed r es i dencyi nform at i on i n 1991, butthe ci t ypr oduced no r ecor ds s uppor t i ng thi s cl ai m . T he fa ctthat t he off i cer s do notdi r ect l ychal l enge N ovembri no’ s t es t i m ony o n th is p o in t is ir re le v a n t. A s n o te d a b o v e , supra not e 16, w h e n e v a lu a tin g a su m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n a c o u rt sh o u ld notcons i dereven unc ontr adi ct ed t es t i m onyof an i nt er es t ed w itn e s s w h e re th a t te s tim o n ys u p p o rt s th e m o v a n t. See R eev es , 5 3 0 U
. S
. at 14 9 -15 1 (cit ati o n s o m itted). O n t he otherhand, a r eas onabl e fa ct
- fi nderm i ght 23 c o n c lu d e th a t th is a rg u m e n t p la c e s th e c a rt b e f o re th e h o rs e . T h e p lain tiff

s a rg u e d in th e ir 1 9 9 7 law su it th a t th e c ity i ntended t o b egin enfo rci ng the resi den cyordi nan ce i n earnest aft ery ear s of i nat t ent i on. I n fac t , the ci t y ’ s thr eat s of im m in e n t e n f

o rc e m e n t w e re th e b a s is o f th e 1 9 9 7 la w s u it. N onethel es s , t he ci t ydi d noti ni t i at e t erm i nat i on pr ocee di ngs a g a in st a n y o n e p rio r to th e 1 9 9 7 law su it, a n d a re a so n a b le fac t
- fi ndercoul d concl ude thatthe ci t y ’ s vi gi l ance i n 2000 w a s m o tiv a ted in p a rt b yth e 1 9 9 7 su it. 22 evi dence w oul d be s uffi ci entt o m eetthe off i cer s ’ bur den of rebut t al

. H ow ever, w e need no tres olve this qu est i on becau se th e su m o f

a ll th e e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g th e o f f ice rs is s uffi ci entt o carr yt hei rbur den. F i rs t , view ed in the li gh tm ostfavo rabl e t o the officer s, t he r es i dencyor di nance had bee n enfor ced ha l f- heart edl yand s p o ra d ic a lly a t b e s t p ri o r t o th e 2 0 0 0 re s id e n c yin v e s tig a tio n . Si nce the or di nance ’ s pas s age i n 1980, the ci t yhas at t empt ed o n lytw ice to c o llec t re sid e n c yin f o rm a tio n f

ro m a ll empl oy ees – i n 1987 and 1997. M or e i m por t ant , ther e i s no 22 evi dence t hatpr i ort o J une 2000 anyempl oy ee w as di s ci pl i ned ort erm i nat ed forfai l ur e t o compl yw i t h t he or di nance . T he ci t y ’ s s udden vi gi l ance coul d s ugges tthatthe ci t yw as m oti vated atl easti n p artbythe o ffi cers ’ p a rt ic ip a tio n in th e 1 9 9 7 la w s u it. See H older , 987 F. 2d at197 ( not i ng H ol der ’ s al l egat i on thatno otherci t yempl oy ee ha d b e e n f ire d f o r n o n -c o m p lian c e w ith re sid e n c yo rd in a n c e in o rdin an ce ’s fo u rt ee n -y ea r ex ist en ce ). 23T he ci t ym i ghtal s o ar gue thati tw as m os tl i kel ythatthe 24 empl oy ees w ho had br oughts ui tw er e i n vi ol at i on of the o rd in a n c e . F o r th a t re a so n , the c itysta rte d w ith th e m . T h is ar gum entw as not , how ever , m ade bythe ci t yi n t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt. 23 N ext , t he off

i cer s s how ed thatof the i ni t i al l i s tof ei ght names s entt o t he pr i vat e i nves t i gat i on fi r m i n M ay2000, s even w er e pol i ce of

fi cer s w ho s ued the ci t yi n 1997. T he ci t ycoul d r es pond t hats hor t l yther eaf t erfourm or e pol i ce offi cer s w er e adde d t o t he l i s tand thatthr ee of thes e four w ere notplai nti ffs i n the 199 7 suit

. H ow ever, the o ffi cers ’ 24 evi dence coul d s t i l l r eas onabl ys ugges tthatthe ci t ypr i or i t i zed and t ar get ed the 1997 pl ai nt i ffs , es peci al l ycons i der i ng the fac tt hatno pol i ce of

fi cerw ho di d nots ue the ci t yi n 1997 w as evert erm i nat ed fornon- compl i ance w i th t he or di nance . T he off i cer s al s o s how ed thatthe 2000 i nves t i gat i on w a s n o t co n d u c ted in a sy ste m a tic f a sh io n . D e sp ite th e C ity C o n tro ller’ s a ttem p t to g a th e r re sid e n c yin f o rm a tio n f

ro m a ll ci t yempl oy ees i n 1997, M ay orC onnor s w as uns ur e w hether hi s offi ce us ed thati nform at i on t o det erm i ne w hi ch empl oy ees w arr ant ed furt heri nves t i gat i on. R ather , M ay or C onnor s and C i t yA t t or neyJ ames M ul l i gan t es t i fi ed thatthe l i s t s of s us pi ci ous empl oy ees w er e gene r at ed l ar gel yfr om t i ps fro m the p u b li c o r fro m o ther c ityem p loy ee s. M ay o r C o n n o rs t es t i fi ed thathe w as “verys at i s fi ed” thatthe 2000 i nves t i gat i on pr oduced a “compl et e l i s t ” of s us pect ed v io lato rs a n d e x p lain e d th a t th e c itym a yh a v e u se d th e re su lts o f th e 1 9 9 7 re q u e st to e lim in a te f ro m su sp icio n th e m a

jo rity o f c ityem p loy ee s. T h e o ff icers p rese n ted e v iden ce , h o w ev er, t hatappr oxi m at el yt w o hundr ed empl oy ees fai l ed t o r es pond to the 1 9 9 7 req u est fo r reside n cyd o cu m en tat ion – there w ere o n ly4 4 5 re sp o n d e n ts o u t o f a p p ro x im a tely6 5 0 c ity empl oy ees . T he ci t ym akes no att empt t o ei t hercontr adi ctor e x p lain th is s h o rtf

a ll. T h e c ity ’s f

a ilu re to c o n d u c t a sy st em at i c and t ho rough i nv est i gati on of all em ploy ees, es peci al l yof thos e w ho r ai s ed r ed fl ags byfai l i ng t o r es pond t o t he mandat or y1997 r eques t , i s cons i s t entw i th t he al l eged r et al i at or ym ot i ve.T he ci t y ’ s act i ons m ayhave be en mot i vat ed bythe 25 pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s i n 1997 t hatthe r es i dencyor di nance w as not onl yuncons t i tut i onal butal s o i ncons i s t entw i t h t he pol i ce C B A
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tacknow l edged thi s cl ai m butnever addr es s ed i t , and w e af

fi r m ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der w i t houtm ent i oni ng t he C B A cl ai m . T hus , the ci t ym ayhave b e e n c o n c e rn e d th a t th e re sid e n c yo rd in a n c e w a s s til l v u ln e ra b le to leg a l ch a llen g e , an d h e n c e m a yh a v e so u g h t to el i m i nat e thatvul ner abi l i t ybyi ncorpor at i ng the or di nance i nto al l of it s col l ect i ve b argai ning agreem ents
. 24 F urther, t he tem po ral proxim i t ybetw een the off i cers ’ pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yand thei rt erm i nat i on s uppor t s an i nfer ence o f re tal iat ion

. T h e o ff

icers lost th eir case in the D istri ct C o u rt i n D ece m ber1997, butw e di d notdenythei rappea l unt i l J une 1999. H i ckeyand H i l l w er e fi r ed w i t hi n one y earof our deci s i on, w hi l e G r aham’ s t erm i nat i on fol l ow ed fourm onths l at er . W e nee d not , how ever , deci de w hethera one- y eargap i s s uffi ci entt o s uppor tan i nfer ence of r et al i at i on. W e have expl ai ned thata r et al i at oryi nfer ence bas ed on t empora l pr oxi m i t yi s s t r engthened w her e “the dec i s i onm akerl acke d a p retex t on w h ich to d ism iss th e p lai n ti ff u n ti l sho rt lyb ef

o re t he t i m e of di s m i s s al

. ” San F i l i ppo , 30 F. 3d at444. A ft erthe c ityp re v a iled in th e D istric t C o u rt a n d b e f o re u s, it ap p a re n tly deci ded t o s t r engthen i t s pos i t i on byi ncorpor at i ng the r es i dencyor di nance i nt o al l of i t s col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng a g re e m e n ts w ith th e v a rio u s u n io n s re p re se n tin g c ity empl oy ees . T he pol i ce CB A cont ai ni ng the new r es i dency

25 pr ovi s i on w as r at i fi ed on O ct ober28, 1999, and i ncl uded a s i x- m ont h gr ace per i od t o run fr om the dat e of r at i fi cat i on. i ckeyand H i l l w er e i nves t i gat ed i n M ay2000 and t erm i nat ed in e a rlyJu n e , jus t a f

e w w e e k s a f

ter th e e x p ira tio n o f

th is gr ace per i od. Fur t her , al t hough G r aham w as nott erm i nat ed unt i l O ct ober2000, t her e i s evi dence thathi s pr e- t erm i nat i on heari ng w as ori ginal l yschedu l ed fo r J uly

. U nd er these ci r cumst ance s t her e i s enough evi dence t o s uppor ta s l i ght i nfer ence of r et al i at i on. A s i n San F i l l i po , w e nee d not det erm i ne w hethert hi s evi dence w oul d be s uffi ci entabs ent th e a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e o f re ta lia tio n d e ta ile d in th is o p in io n . 32 F. 2d at444.25 Fi nal l y , t he off

i cer s pr es ent ed s om e evi dence that M ay o r C o n n o rs w as p arti cu larl yco n ce rne d w ith the o ff icers w h o su ed the c ityin 1 9 9 7
. H icke ytest ifi ed that C o n n o rs as ked hi m athi s pr e- t erm i nat i on hear i ng w hyhe part i ci pat ed i n t he 1997 l aw s ui t
. Fur t her , anotherpol i ce of fi cert es t i fi ed t hatC onnor s had s ought“s t r ongerl anguage ” r egar di ng re sid e n c yin th e p o lice C B A to e n su re th a t th e o f f ice rs w o u ld n o t b e a b le to f

u rt h e r r e s is t th e c ity’s e n f o rc e m e n t e f

f o rt s . W h il e the se c o m m en ts are am en ab le t o a n o n -retal iat o ry in ter p re tatio n , a re a so n a b le f a c t-f in d e r c o u ld a lso c o n c lu d e , in l i ghtof al l t he otherevi dence di s cus s ed above , thatM ay or C onnor s w as unfavor abl ydi s pos ed t ow ar ds the off i cer s w ho p a rt ic ip a te d in th e 1 9 9 7 la w s u it. Foral l t he above r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe pol i ce offi cer s have pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence thatthe ci t yus ed the re side n cyo rdin an ce as a p retex t fo r retal iat o ry t erm i nat i ons i n vi ol at i on of the off i cer s ’ Fi r s tA m endment ri g h t to p e titio n th e g o v e rn m e n t. B . H ick e y ’s P o st- T e r m in a tio n H e a r in g D e la y C la im A s not ed i n Par tI I , H i ckeyar gued i n oppos i t i on t o t he c ity ’s m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t th a t th e len g th yd e lay i n pr ovi di ng hi s pos t
- t erm i nat i on M uni ci pal Ser vi ce he ar i ng vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o pr ocedur al due pr oces s . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt tre a ted H ick e y ’s a rg u m e n t as a c o n stru c tiv e m o tio n to am en d h is co m p lai n t un d er F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 15( a) , w hi ch i tul t i m at el ydeni ed. W e conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on orcomm i tanyl egal err ori n r eac hi ng t hi s deci s i on.

F irst, w e re

jec t H ick e y ’s f

riv o lo u s a rg u m e n t th a t h is c o m p lain t g a v e e f

f e c tiv e n o tice to th e c ityo f h is p o stt erm i nat i on hear i ng del aycl ai m . H i ckeyi s corr ectthatnot i ce pl eadi ng r equi r es onl y“a s hor tand pl ai n s t at ementof the c l a i m s h o wi n g t h a tt h e p l e a d e ri s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f , ” F e d

. R. C i v. P. 8( a) , butH i ckey ’ s compl ai ntfal l s fars hor tof thi s l ow t hr es hol d. N ow her e i n t he compl ai ntdoes H i ckeyeven a l l ege26 t hathe r eques t ed a M uni ci pal Ser vi ce he ar i ng, m uch l es s that th e c ityf a iled to tim e lyp ro v id e su c h a h e a rin g . In f a c t, H ick e y ’s c o m p lain t d o e s n o t alle g e a n yf a c ts a t all re latin g to t he per i od aft erhe w as t erm i nat ed i n J une 2000. N e x t, w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t itw o u ld have be en fut i l e t o al l ow H i ckeyt o amend hi s compl ai nt b e c a u se h is a lleg a tio n s b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t sta te a c laim o n w h ich h e c o u ld h a v e o b tain e d re lief. W h ile R u le 15( a) pr ovi des t hatl eave t o amend shoul d be “f r eel ygi ven, ” a d istric t co u rt h a s d isc re tio n to d e n ya re q u e st to a m e n d if it i s appar entfr om t he r ecor d t hat( 1) the movi ng par t yhas demonstr at ed undue de l ay , bad fa i t h ordi l at orym ot i ves , ( 2) th e a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e f u til e , o r (3 ) th e a m e n d m e n t w o u ld p re ju d ic e th e o th e r p a rt y . See, e. g. , G ra y so n v . M

a y v iew S ta te H o s p ., 293 F. 3d 103, 108 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng Fom an v. D avis , 371 U
. S. 178, 182 ( 1962) )

. H i ckeyi s corr ectthatthe due pr oces s cl aus e “r equi r es pr ovi s i on of a [ pos t
- t erm i nat i on] hear i ng ata meani ngful t i m e. ” C l eve l and B d. of E duc. v. L o u d e rm ill , 470 U
. S. 532, 547 ( 1985)

. T hus , “ther e i s a poi nt atw hi ch an unj us t i fi ed del ayi n compl et i ng a pos t
- depr i vat i on pr ocee di ng w oul d become a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. ” F D IC v. M al l en , 486 U
. S. 230, 242 ( 1988) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T he keypoi nt , how ever , i s thatthe del aym us tbe
“ u n ju s tif ie d .” W e h a v e h e ld th a t th e “ m e re a lle g a tio n o f a . . . t w enty - m ont h del ay ” w i t houts uppl ement aryal l egat i ons conce r ni ng t he ca us e of the del aydoes nots t at e a c o n s titu tio n a l c la im

. R i t t erv. C ohen , 797 F. 2d 119, 124 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). B e f

o re th e D istric t C o u rt, H ick e ysim p lysta ted in concl us or yfas hi on t hathi s due pr oces s r i ght s had bee n vi ol at ed by“the unw arr ant ed del ayof tw o and [a ] hal f ( 2 1/ 2) ye a r s . ” R a t h e rt h a n a t t e m p tt o e x p l a i n th e c a u s e o f th e d e l a y, H i ckeychos e i ns t ead t o devot e the maj or i t yof hi s br i ef t o r ear gui ng t he mer i t s of hi s Fi r s tA m endmentand equa l p ro tec tio n c laim s. A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly fol l ow ed R i t t era n d h e ld th a t g ra n tin g lea v e to a m e n d w o u ld b e f u tile

. H i ckeynow ar gues forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al thatthe ci t ycaus ed the del ayi n t he M uni ci pal Ser vi ce Com m i s s i on p roc ee d ing b yfa il ing to co m p lyw ith h is l eg it im ate d isco v eryW e not e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tm i ghthave a l s o r el i ed 26 o n H ick e y ’s la c k o f

d ili g e n c e in tim e lyra isin g h is p o stt erm i nat i on due pr oces s cl ai m . H i ckeyfi l ed hi s or i gi nal c o m p lain t in A p ril 2 0 0 1 , an d a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t in D ece m ber2001, appr oxi m at el yone and a hal f y ear s aft erhe w as t erm i nat ed i n J une 2000. Y etH i ckeydi d notm ent i on any pos t
- t erm i nat i on hear i ng del ayunt i l A ugus t2002, m or e than tw o y e a rs a f

ter h is te rm in a tio n . H ick e yn e v e r a ttem p ted to e x p l a i n t o t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r twh yh e wa i t e d mo r e th a n two y ear s t o r ai s e thi s cl ai m forthe fi r s tt i m e, norhas he off er ed a n ye x p lan a tio n f

o r th is d e lay on a p p e a l. W e nee d notcons i derthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s al t ernat i ve 27 concl us i on t hatH i ckey ’ s cons t ruct i ve mot i on t o amend w as m ade i n bad fa i t h. 27 re q u e sts . H a d th is a lleg a tio n b e e n m a d e in th e D istric t C o u rt, t he courtm i ghtnothave he l d t hatH i ckey ’ s at t empt ed amendm entw as fut i l e. H ow ever , the D i s t r i ctC our tr eac hed t he corr ectr es ul tbas ed on the i nform at i on pr ovi ded atthe t i m e byt he part i es . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe 26 D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n b yd e n y in g lea v e to amend. 27 V . C oncl usi on F o r the for egoi ng r eas ons w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o t he ci t yon the offi cer s ’ Fi r s tA m endmentcl ai m s and r emand thos e cl ai m s for fu rth er pro ce ed ing s. W e w il l af firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ers i n all otherres pects
.