2009 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 12-11-2009 

# S mith v . C e n t D auphin S ch P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-3822

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S mith v . C e n t D aup hin S ch " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 114. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/114NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL 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 o. 07- 3822

_____________ VI CK I S M I T H, A ppel l ant v. CE NT RA L DAUP HI N S CH OOL DI S T RI CT ; BA RB AR A HAS S ON; YVONN E HOL L I NS ; RI CH AR D M AZ Z AT E S T A;

A pp el l ees.

_______________ O n 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. 05- cv- 1003) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

_______________ A r gued N ovember 3, 2009 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , J O R D A N a n d G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber11, 2009)

_______________ An d r e w J . Os t r o ws k i [ AR GUE D] B ai l ey , St r et t on & O s t r ow s ki 4311 N . 6 St r eet

th H ar r i s bur g, PA 17110 C ouns el f orAppel l ant2

S t e p h a n i e E . Di Vi t t o r e [ AR GUE D] J ames E. E l l i s on R hoads & Si non O n e S o u th M a rk e t S q u a re - 1 2 F l. th P. O . B ox 1146 H ar r i s bur g, PA 17108 C ouns el f orAppel l ees

_______________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antV i cki Sm i t h fi l ed a c om pl ai nt i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our t fort he M idd le D ist ri ct of

P en n sy lvan ia ag ains t th e C en tr al D au p h in S ch o o l D istri ct, B arb ara H as s on, Y vonne H ol l i ns , and R i char d M azz at es t a ( col l ect i vel yt he “A ppel l ees ”) under42 U . S. C . § 1983, al l egi ng t hatA ppel l ees vi ol at ed herFi r s t A m endment r i ght t o fr ee s peec h byr et al i at i ng agai ns t herfors peaki ng abouta mat t erof publ i c conc er n. T he D i s t r i ct C our t gr ant ed i n par t and deni ed i n par t t w o m ot i ons fors um m ar yj udgm entbr ought by A ppel l ees . A t t r i al , t he D i s t r i ctC our t gr ant ed t he A ppel l ees ’ R ul e 50 mot i on for j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw ( “J M O L ”) on al l but one of Sm i t h’ s cl ai m s , w hi ch w as agai ns t H as s on. T he j ur yt hen r etur ned a ve r di cti n favorof H as s on, and, pur s uantt o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s J M O L r ul i ng and t he j ur yver di ct , t he C l er k of t he C our t ent er ed j udgm enti n favorof al l A ppel l ees and aga i ns t Sm i t h. O n ap p ea l, S m ith claim s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rterred in g ran ti n g su m m ary ju d g m e n t an d JM O L b e c a u se th e C o u rt im p ro p e rlyse g re g a ted h e r c laim s in to d isc re teI n t hi s m at t er , t her e ar e t w o bui l di ngs i dent i fi ed as “C ent r al D auphi n H i gh School . ” 1 “ O ld ” C D H S w a s lo c a te d o n L o c u s t L a n e , in L o w e r P a x to n T o w n s h ip P e n n s y lv a n ia . “N ew ” C D H S, l ocat ed on Pi ket ow n R oad, W es t H anoverT ow ns hi p, Penns y l vani a, w as c o m p lete d in tim e f

o r u se in th e 2 0 0 4 -0 5 sc h o o l y e a r. W e u se “ o ld ” a n d “ n e w ” to d if f e re n tia te b e tw e e n th e tw o b u ild in g s . 3 adver s e empl oy m entact i ons , r at hert han ana l y zi ng A ppel l ees ’ conductas a w hol e, and beca us e t he C our t r equi r ed pr oof t hateac h defe ndantpar t i ci pat ed oracqui es ced i n eac h of t he al l eged a ct s of r et al i at i on. Sm i t h al s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t er r ed att r i al by excl udi ng t he t es t i m onyof one of herw i t nes s es . B eca us e t he out come of t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt p ro c e e d in g s is in a ll r e s p e c ts s o u n d , w e w ill a f f ir m . I . Fac t ual Backg r ound A . Sm i t h’s Em

ploym ent and Il l ness Sm i t h beca m e a f

ul l - t i m e, per m anentempl oy ee of t he C ent r al D auphi n School D i st ri ct (the “S cho ol D i st ri ct ”) i n 1 98 9, w hen she beg an teachi ng and coach i ng cross c o u n trya t o ld C e n tra l D a u p h in H ig h S c h o o l (“ o ld C D H S ” ). In A u g u st 2 0 0 1 , S m ith 1 began e xper i enci ng per s i s t ents y m pt om s of i l l nes s , i ncl udi ng s hor t nes s of br eath, fat i gue, and j oi nt pr obl ems. She began t o s us pectheri l l nes s w as bei ng caus ed byenvi r onm ent al condi t i ons atol d C D H S, s o s he cont act ed Tom Fer gus on, hert eac her s ’ uni on repr esent at i ve. O t her t eache rs at old C D H S w ere al so sai d to have con t act ed the t eache rs ’ uni on t o compl ai n aboutenvi r onm ent al condi t i ons att he s chool and t he s y m pt om s t hey w er e expe r i enci ng. A s a r es ul t of t he compl ai nt s , B arbar a H as s on, t he School D i s t r i ct S u p e rin ten d e n t, ag re e d to h a v e A n a ly tica l L a b o ra to ryS e rv ice s, In c . (“A L S I” ) te st o ld4

C D H S for pot ent i al heal t h haza r ds . T es t i ng atol d C D H S began on orar ound F e b ru a ry 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 . S h o r t l yb e f

o r e t h a t , o n F e b r u a r y7 , 2 0 0 2 , S mi t h we n t o n s i c k l e a v e . He r s y mp t o ms had w or s ened dur i ng t he 2001- 02 s chool y ear , and s he fi l ed compl ai nt s aboutt he co n d it ion s at o ld C D H S w ith the P en n sy lvan ia D ep artm en ts of L ab o r an d H ea lth . In ear l yt o m i d- M ar ch of 2002, t he H arrisburg P atr i ot- N

ew s r epor t ed t hatm ol d had bee n di s cover ed atol d C D H S. I n r es pons e t o t hatpr es s r epor t , H as s on appea r ed on a l ocal n e w s b ro a d c a st, sta tin g th a t o ld C D H S w a s s a f e a n d d id n o t p o se a h e a lth risk to stu d e n ts o r t ea ch ers. Sim il arly , R icha rd M az za test a, t h e p ri n cipa l ato ld C D H S , assu red m em b ers of ol d C D H S’ s Par ent - T eac her - St udentO r gani zat i on ( “PT SO ”) t hatA L SI ’ s t es t s s how ed that o ld C D H S w as sa fe . A L S I’s t esti n g co n clud ed o n M arc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 , an d a f inal rep o rt of i t s fi ndi ngs w as m ade publ i cl yavai l abl e on M ar ch 26, 2002. T he r epor t r evea l ed t hat m o ld h a d , in f

a c t, b e e n f

o u n d in th e a u d ito ri u m , a s ig n s to ra g e a re a , a n d a c la s s ro o m . B . Smi t h ’s R e t u r n t o Old CD HS In A pri l 20 02 , S m i t h’s doct ors advi sed her t o resum e w orki ng at old C D H S , as a t es t s o t hatt heycoul d det er m i ne w het hert he condi t i ons t her e w oul d aggr avat e her condi t i on. Pr i or t o Sm i t h goi ng on s i ck l eave on Febr uar y7, 2002, H as s on had r ece i ved c o mp l a i n t s f

r o m s t u d e n t s a n d t e a c h e r s t h a t S mi t h wa s d i s c u s s i n g t h e o l d CD HS condi t i ons and herheath conce r ns dur i ng cl as s . A ccor di ngl y , w hen H as s on l earned t hat S m ith w o u ld b e re tu rn in g to o ld C D H S , sh e se n t a m e m o ra n d u m to M a z z a tes ta a n d to5

Y vonne H ol l i ns , t he School D i s t r i ct ’ s A s s i s t antSuper i nt endentforSecondaryE ducat i on, i ns t r uct i ng t hem t o m eetw i t h Sm i t h and t el l hert o t eac h onl yt he curr i cul um . W hen Sm i t h ar r i ved atw or k on t he morni ng of A pr i l 29, 2002, M azz at es t a and H ol l i ns s poke w ith S m ith a s H a s s o n h a d d ir e c te d . Smi t h’ s s y mpt oms r e a pp e a r e d wi t hi n t w e nt y - fo urho ur s of r e t ur ni ng t o o l d CD H S, and s he once agai n w enton m edi cal l eave on M ay16, 2002, on t he advi ce of her phy s i ci ans . T he School D i s t r i ctt r ans ferr ed Sm i t h fr om ol d C D H S t o L i ngl es t ow n J uni or H i gh School ( “LJH S”) fort he 2002- 03 s chool y ear , w hi ch w as bel i eved t o be an e n v iro n m e n tallysa f

e p lac e f o r h e r to tea c h , sin c e it w a s a n e w e r b u ild in g a n d h a d re c e n tly under gone pr ocedur es form ol d r emoval , a pr oces s know n as “r emedi at i on. ” C . Sm i t h’s P r es s R el eas e and M az z at es t a’s C onver

s at i on w i t h H

oachl ander O n J une 12, 2002, Sm i t h i s s ued a pr es s r el eas e, w hi ch a ne w s paper t ur ned i nt o an ar t i cl e w i t h t he hea dl i ne, “Local T eac herB r eaks Si l ence on T oxi c M ol d I n C . D . H i gh. ” I n t he ar t i cl e, Sm i t h di s cus s ed herheal t h pr obl ems, hercompl ai nt s t o t he D epar t m ent s of L aborand H eal t h, and herbel i ef t hatt he School D i s t r i cthad tur ned a bl i nd ey e t o t he h e a lth c o n c e rn s o f

its te a c h e rs a n d s tu d e n ts . A ft ert he pr es s r el eas e, M azz at es t a s poke w i t h D ebr a H oachl ander , a par ent m ember of t he PT SO . She t ol d M azz at es t a t hatSm i t h had bee n s endi ng here- m ai l s about th e e n v iro n m e n tal c o n d iti o n s a t o ld C D H S . A c c o rd in g to H o a c h lan d e r, M a z z a tes ta r epl i ed t hat , i n hi s opi ni on, Sm i t h w as s pr eadi ng fal s ehoods t hr ough t he medi a aboutt he6

c o n d iti o n s a t o ld C D H S . S m ith a lso c laim s th a t M a z z a tes ta a sk e d H o a c h lan d e r to fo rw ard S m ith ’s em ail s to h im , an d o ff ere d to v iew S m ith ’s e-m ail s o n H o ac h land er’s hom e comput er . M azz at es t a t es t i fi ed att r i al t hathe s i m pl yt ol d H oachl anderhe w oul d be w i l l i ng t o l ook att he e- m ai l s i f H oachl anders o des i r ed. H e vehe m ent l ydeni ed eve r o f f e ri n g g o to H o a c h la n d e r’ s h o u s e to v ie w th e e -m a ils . D . L J

H S a n d th e Fa m ily Me d ica l L e a v e A c t A ft erSm i t h w as t r ans fer r ed t o L J H S for t he 2002- 03 s chool y ear , m ol d w as di s cover ed on t hatcampus a s w el l . A l t hough t he mol d w as di s cover ed on J une 14, 2002, H as s on di d not i nfor m Sm i t h of t he mol d atL J H S unt i l Sept ember 27, 2002, w hen t he School D i s t r i ctw as i n t he pr oces s of r emedi at i ng t he af fec t ed ar ea. Sm i t h cont i nued tea c h in g a t L JH S th ro u g h th e 2 0 0 2 -0 3 sc h o o l y e a r, b u t sh e w a s s til l ex p e rie n c in g h e a lth p r o b l e ms . S mi t h ’ s d o c t o r s i n f o r me d h e r a n d Ha s s o n o f t h e i r c o n c e r n t h a t n e i t h e r CD HS n o r L JH S w e re sa f

e e n v iro n m e n ts f

o r S m ith , an d th e ya d v ise d th a t S m ith n o t re tu rn to ei t hers chool . D ur i ng t he s um m erof 2003, Fer gus on, t he uni on r epr es ent at i ve, began di s cus s i ng w i t h H as s on and H ol l i ns al t er nat i ve w or k ar r angement s forSm i t h. D ur i ng t hos e di s cus s i ons , H ol l i ns m ent i oned t he pos s i bi l i t yof Sm i t h r eques t i ng benef i t s under t h e Fa mi l yM e d i c a l Le a v e Act( “ FM LA”) , b u t Fe r g u s o n i n f o r me d Hol l i n s t h a t a n FM LA s o l u t i o n wa s n o t i n S mi t h ’ s b e s t i n t e r e s t s a n d t h a t S mi t h wa n t e d t o c o n t i n u e t o t e a c h . By th e e n d o f

A u g u st 2 0 0 3 , the S c h o o l D istric t w a s c o n v in c e d th a t itd id n o t h a v e a su itab le a lte rn a tiv e p o s itio n f

o r S m ith f

o r t h e 2 0 0 3 -0 4 s c h o o l yea r.7

O n A u g u st 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 , the S c h o o l B o a rd a p p ro v e d F M L A lea v e f o r S m ith , d e sp ite Smi t h ’ s n e v e r h a v i n g r e q u e s t e d s u c h l e a v e . I t i s u n c l e a r who a c t u a l l yr e q u e s t e d FM LA le a v e f o r S m ith , b u t, in a n ye v e n t, o n th e a d v ic e o f F e rg u s o n , S m ith a c c e p te d th e le a v e . E . N ew C entr alD auphi n High School I n A pr i l 2004, Sm i t h l earned t hat , fort he 2004- 05 s chool y ear , s he w oul d be t eac hi ng ata new l ycons t r uct ed C ent r al D auphi n H i gh School ( “new C D H S”) , w hi ch had been bui l t w hi l e s he w as on FM L A l eave . W hen Sm i t h began a t new C D H S, herw or ki ng c o n d iti o n s w e re d if

f e re n t th a n th e yh a d b e e n a t o ld C D H S in a t lea st th re e w a y s. F irst, i ns t ead of

t eac hi ng t he cl as s es s he had t aughtbefor e, s he w as as s i gned t o t eac h cl as s es w i t h w hi ch s he w as unfami l i ar . Second, unl i ke atol d C D H S, w her e Sm i t h had bee n as s i gned a pe r m anentcl as s r oom , s he bec ame a “fl oat er ” atnew C D H S, m eani ng t hats he w a s re q u ire d to tea c h in se v e ra l d if f e re n t cla ss ro o m s th ro u g h o u t th e d a y . T h ird , w h ile Sm i t h had pr evi ous l ybeen a n as s i s t antcr os s - count r ycoac h atol d C D H S, t hough not at th e c o n c lu sio n o f

h e r tim e th e re , sh e d id n o t co a c h a t n e w C D H S a t all. i . Teachi ng A s s ignm ent T he pr oces s fordet er m i ni ng w hi ch t eac herw oul d t eac h w hi ch s ubj ect s i n t he s oci al s t udi es depar t m entof C D H S ( bot h ol d and new ) began i n A pr i l of ea ch y ear , w hen t he depa r t m enthead c onfer r ed w i t h t he t eac her s t o det er m i ne w hi ch s ubj ect s t heyw ant ed t o t eac h. T he depa r t m enthead w oul d t hen conve yt hati nfor m at i on t o t he pr i nci pal , w ho d e c id e d w h ic h s u b

je c ts w o u ld b e ta u g h t b yw h ic h te a c h e rs th e f o llo w in g s c h o o l yea r.8

I n A pr i l 2004, upon l earni ng of heras s i gnm entt o new C D H S, Sm i t h cont act ed K at hyE cker t , t he hea d of t he s oci al s t udi es depar t m entand as ked i f s he w oul d be al l ow ed to teac h the s am e su b

jects t h at sh e h ad taug h t ato ld C D H S , n am elym u lt icultural history and s oci ol ogy . E cker t r ecomm ended t o M azz at es t a t hatSm i t h t eac h t hos e s ubj ect s dur i ng t he 2004- 05 s chool y ear , des pi t e t he fa ctt hatanot hert eac her , M r . O s ovel l a, had t aught th e m d u rin g th e 2 0 0 3 -0 4 sc h o o l y e a r, w h ile S m ith w a s o n F M L A lea v e . M a z z a tes ta as ked O s ovel l a w het herhe w oul d dr op t hos e cour s es s o t hatSm i t h coul d t eac h t hem, but O so v e lla d e m u rre d . T h e re f o re , M a z z a tes ta a ss ig n e d th e c o u rse s to O so v e lla in ste a d o f to S m ith f o r th e 2 0 0 4 -0 5 sc h o o l y e a r. T h e n e x t y e a r, M a z z a tes ta a g a in a ss ig n e d O so v e lla to t e a c h t h o s e c o u r s e s . S m i t h i n s t e a d t a u g h t U . S . G o v e r n m e n t a n d U . S . H i s t o r y.

i i . No P e r ma n e n tCla s s r o o m f o rSmi t h a tn e w C

DHS M azz at es t a dec i ded w hi ch t eac her s w oul d be gi ven per m anentcl as s r oom s fort he s chool y earand w hi ch t eac her s w oul d be r equi r ed t o m ove aboutdur i ng t he s chool day and t eac h i n s ever al di ffe r entcl as s r oom s . H e made t hi s deci s i on bas ed on t he “bui l di ng sen iori ty ” o f e ac h teac h er. T h e lon g er a teac h er h ad w o rke d in the b u il d ing , the m o re l i kel yt hatt eac herw as t o r ece i ve a pe r m anentcl as s r oom as s i gnm ent . T he dec i s i on w as not bas ed on t he t eac her ’ s l engt h of s er vi ce i n t he School D i s t r i ct . T hus , forexampl e, i f a t eac herw ho had t w ent yy ear s of expe r i ence i n t he School D i s t r i ctt r ans ferr ed t o new C D H S, t hatt eac herw oul d not di s pl ace a t eac herw i t h fi ve y ear s i n t he School D i s t r i ct w h o h a d b e e n a t n e w C D H S f o r th o se f

iv e y e a rs. B e c a u se th e f a c u ltyin its e n tiretyIn t he fa l l of 2 00 2, S m i t h w as t eaching at LJH S bu t w as st i l l al l ow ed to coach cross 2 c o u n tr ya t o ld C D H S . 9 m oved t o new C D H S w hen t he s chool opened i n 2004, M azz at es t a ca r r i ed overt he te a c h e rs ’ b u ild in g s e n io ri ty f ro m o ld C D H S . M azz at es t a had a l r eadym ade c l as s r oom as s i gnm ent s w hen he l earned, i n J une 2004, t hatSm i t h w oul d be r etur ni ng t o new C D H S. Fur t her , beca us e Sm i t h had bee n abs entfr om C D H S for t w o y ear s , M azz at es t a gave herno bui l di ng s eni or i t yupon her r etur n. T her efor e, Sm i t h w as not gi ven a pe r m anentcl as s r oom dur i ng t he 2004- 05 s chool y earor t he 2005- 06 s chool y ear . I ns t ead, overt he cour s e of the s chool day , s he w as re q u ir e d to w o rk in s ix d if f e re n t c la s s ro o m s lo c a te d o n tw o d if f e re n t f lo o rs . i i i . A s s is t antC oachi ng P os i t i on on C D H S’s C r os s - C ount r

y Team Sm i t h had bee n t

he as s i s t ant

coac h for

t he cros s - count

r y t eam at ol d C D H S each s chool y ear fr om 1988 t

hr ough t he fa l ls eas on i n 2002. T h e p ro c e dure f o r h irin g ana ss istan t co a c hin 2 t he SchoolD i s t

r i ct began w i t

h t he hea d coac h as ki ng a per s on t o be t he as s i s t ant

coac h for

t he t eam. I f t hat per s on agr eed, t

he hea d coac h s ubm i tt ed her name t o t

he A t hl eti c D i r ector

of t he SchoolD i s t

r i ct . T he A t

hl eti c D i r ector

coul d di s cus s t

he nomi nati ons w i t

h t he pri ncipalof t

he s choolat w hi ch t he per s on w as t o coac h. T he A t hl eti c D i r ector

t hen s ubm i tt ed t

he name of t

he pr opos ed as s i s t ant

coac h t o t

he SchoolB oar d for

t he finaldeci s i on as t o w het her t he per s on w o u ldb e h ir e da s ana s s is tan t c o a c h . R i ch Leusc hner , t

he C D H S cr os s count

r y head c oach, as ked Sm i t

h i n t he s pri ng of 2003 i f s he w oul d l i ke t o be as s i s t ant coac h again i n t

he fa l l . She s ai d y es , and M r . L eus chner10

s ubm i tt ed her

name t o t

he A t hl eti c D i r ector

and t o D efe ndant

M azz at es t a, bot

h of w hom appr oved. Sm i t

h s ubs equently

t ook FM L A l eave for

t he 2003- 04 s chooly ear . D ue t o t he fa ct t hat s he w as being r ecomm ended f or a pos i ti on at

ol d C D H S, t

he ver y bui l di ng t

hat s he b e liev e dh a dc au se dh e r illne ss , the S c h o o l B o ardd e c id e dth at S m ithsh o u ldn o t b e a llo w e dto co ac hcro ss-co untr

y at oldC D H S w h il e o nF M L A leav e. S m it hd id n o t coa ch cro ss-co un tr y w h ile at n e w C D H S . I I . P roce duralH i s t ory Sm i t h fi l ed t hi s l aw s ui t

on M ay 17, 2005, and s hort ly

t her eaf t er fi l ed an am ended c o m p lain t alle g in g th at th e C e n tra l D aup h inS c h o o l D istric t, H a ss o n , H o llin s, an dM a z z ates ta had vi ol at ed her

Fi r s t A m endment

fr ee s peec h ri ght s by

r et al i ati ng agains t

her for s peaking out ab o u t th e e n v ir o n m e n ta l c o n d itio n s at o ldC D H S . A . M oti ons f or Sum m ar y Judgm ent Pr i or t o t r i al , t he D i s t ri ct C ourt gr ant ed in par

t and deni ed in par

t t w o m oti ons for s um m ar y j udgm ent . I n t

he fir s t of t hos e dec i s i ons , t

he D i s t ri ct C ourt i denti fi ed t

he fol l ow i ng e ig h t re taliato ry

a c tio n s a lleg e d ly

tak e nb y th e A p p e llee s: (1 ) th e S c h o o l B o ardp lac in g S m ith on FM L A l eave ; ( 2) t

he SchoolB oard denyi ng Sm i t h t he as s i s t ant

coac hi ng pos i ti on; ( 3) H a ss o nc o m m e n tin g to th e p re ss ab o u t co n d iti o n s a t o ldC D H S , in r e sp o n se to re p o rts o f m o ld at th e sc h o o l; (4 ) M a z z ates ta s tatin g th at S m ithw a s s p re a d in g f a lse h o o d s ab o u t co n d iti o n s a t o ld C D H S; ( 5) M azz at es t a and H ol l i ns i ns t r ucti ng Sm i t

h t o t eac h only

t he cur ri culum ; ( 6) H as s on w i t hhol di ng i nfor

m ati on about

m ol d at L J H S; ( 7) M azz at es t a as s i gni ng Sm i t h t o t eac h11

un f am ilia r c o urs e s ; an d(8 ) M a z z ate s tad e nyin g S m ith ap e rm an e n t c la s s ro o m at n e w C D H S . O f th ese eigh t acti o n s, the D ist ri ct C o urt h eld th at, ev enif p rov edat t ri al, o n ly fiv e w ere acti onabl e under

§ 1983: pl acing Sm i t

h on FM L A l eave ; denyi ng her t he as s i s t ant

coac hi ng pos i t i on; w i t

hhol di ng i nfor

m ati on about

m ol d at L JH S; as s i gni ng her

unfami l i ar

cour s es ; and fai l i ng t o gi ve her

a per m anent cl as s r oom at

new C D H S. T hus , s um m ar y j udgm ent

w as deni ed w ith re s p e c t to th o s e f

iv e a c ts b u t w a s g ra n te dw ith re s p e c t to th e o th e r th re e . N ext , t he D i s t r i ct C ourt exami ned t

he r ol e of e ach de fendant i n eac h of t

he five r et al i at or y acti ons and l i m i t ed ea ch def endant ’ s pot enti all i abi l i t y t o t he ac t s i n w hi ch ea ch had par t i cipat ed or

acqui es ced. T he C ourt

concluded t

hat , at m os t , t he evi dence s how ed t

hat H as s on par t i cipat ed in pl acing Sm i t

h on FM L A l eave , denyi ng Sm i t h t he as s i s t ant

coac hi ng pos i ti on, and w i t hhol di ng i nfor

m ati on fr om Sm i t

h about L J H S; t hat M azz at es t a, par

ti cipat ed in as s i gni ng Sm i t h unfami l i ar

cour s es and denyi ng her a per m anent cl as s r oom ; and t

hat H ol l i ns par

ti cipat ed inp lac in g S m itho nF M L A lea v e . S um m ary ju d g m e n t w a s g ran tedto e a c hd e f e n d an t w ith re s p e c t to a ll o th e r a c ts f o r w h ic hth e re w a s n o e v id e n c e o f th e ir p e rs o n a l in v o lv e m e n t. T he D i s t r i ct C ourt conduct ed a s i m i l ar

analy s i s w i t

h r es pect t o t he s econd mot i on for sum m ary j ud gm ent, w hich pert ai nedt o the Sch oo lD i st ri ct andi t s potenti all i abil i t

y as a m uni cipal i t

y . A ft er addr es s i ng m uni cipall i abi l i t y , t he C ourt concluded t

hat t he SchoolD i s t

r i ct coul d only

be l i abl e, i f at

al l , for pl acing Sm i t

h on FM L A l eave and fa i l i ng t o hi r e her as a s s is tan t c o a c h .12

B . R eques t

f or Continuance T r i alw as s et

for A ugus t 20, 2007. A ppr oxi m at ely one w eek pri or

t o t hat dat e, Fer gus on, w ho w as one of Sm i t h’ s w i t nes s es , s uffe r ed a he ar

t at t ack. Sm i t

h s ought t o del ay t he t r i aldat e unti ls uch ti m e as Fer gus on coul d appear t o t es ti fy . T he i s s ue w as br ought t he D i s t r i ct C ourt ’ s at

t enti on t hr ough a r eques t , but

no for m alm oti on for

conti nuance w as fi l ed. I n an A ugus t 15, 2007 or der , t

he D i s t r i ct C ourt deni ed t he r eques t

for conti nuance and ins t ead r ul ed t hat Sm i t h’ s couns elw oul d be al l ow ed t o pr es ent porti ons of Fergus on’ s vi deot aped de pos i ti on at tr ia l. C . E xcl us i on of H oachl ander ’ s Tes tim ony O nthe s ec o n dd ay

o f tri al, S m it

hca ll edD eb ra H o ac h land er to testi fy . A s S m it h ’s c ouns e lbe gan que s t i on i ng H oa c hl and e r c on c e r ning H oa c hl and e r ’ s membe r s hip in t he PTSO and s er vi ce to t he s chool , defe ns e couns elobj ect ed on r el evanc e gr ounds . T he C ourt t hen as ked Sm i t h’ s couns el , “w hat

i s t he pr offe r ?” ( A pp. at

472. ) Sm i t

h’ s couns elr es ponded by i denti fyi ng t

hr ee t hi ngs t hat w oul d be cove r ed by

H oachl ander ’ s t es ti m ony . Fi r s t , as a parent acti ve at t he s chool , H oachl ander

had dir ect

cont act w i t h a SchoolB oar d m ember and pot enti al w it n ess n am edM au sn er. Se co n d , alt h o u g hM au sn er h adn o t yet t esti fied , H o ac h land er’s t es t i m ony w oul d, couns els ai d, i m peac h M aus ner ’ s cr edibi l i t y . T hi r d, H oachl ander

w as pr epar ed t o cont

r adi ct M azz at es t a’ s earl i er

t ri alt es ti m ony

t hat he had ne ver

r eques t ed t o s ee S m it h ’s e-m ail s to H o ac h land er an dn ev er o ff ere dto v iew S m it

h ’s e-m ail s at H o ac h land er’s re s id e n c e .T he r efe r ence i s evi dent l yt o Mon el lv. N ew Y ork C i t y D ep’tof Soci al Servs . , 43 6 U. S. 3 658 ( 1978) , t he s emi nal Supr eme C our t cas e on muni ci pal l i abi l i t yunder§ 1983. 13 T he C ourt

t hen as ked couns elt o expl ain t he r el evanc e of t

he pr offe r ed t es ti m ony

and t he f o llo w in g c o llo quy

e n su e d : Pl aint i ff’ s couns el : T he r el evanc e, Y our H onor , i s t

he s choolboard now knew about w hat w as goi ng on about

M s . Sm i t

h. T he s choolboard i s t

he pol i cy m aker t o t he di s t r i ct , s o I t hi nk i t goes t o s how t

hat t he s chooldi s t

ri ct i t s el f w as aw ar e of w hat w as goi ng w i t

h M s . Sm i t

h. [s i c] T he C ourt : A nd? Pl aint i ff’ s couns el : I ’ m s or r y . I t hi nk i t goes di r ectly

t o t he M o n e ll her e. 3
*** T he C ourt : W hat

pol i cy ? W hat

pol i cy i s i nvol ved? Pl aint i ff’ s couns el : W el l , Y our H onor , i t ’ s t

he pol i cy t hat t he s choolboard and t he s chooldi s t

r i ct t ur ned a bl i nd eye on t o w hat w as happening t o M s . Sm i t h, turn e dab lin de y e to h e r c o m p la in ts . *** T h e C o urt : O k ay . S o w h at i ssu e d o es th at in v o lve o f th e .. . issue s tha t are i n v o l v e di nt

h i s c a s e ? Pl aint i ff’ s couns el : Y our

H onor , one, I t

hi nk i t goes t o r et al i ati on. For

t he re talia tio nan df

o r th e p un itiv e d am a g e s, Y o ur H o n o r, w e h av e to sh o w ane v il m ot i ve. I f t

he s chooldi s t

r i ct w ent out of i t s w ay

t o keep t hi s pr obl em from the par ent s , t o keep t

hi s pr obl em from the publ i c, and t hen M s . Sm i t

h i nfor m ed t he p ub lic o f it, th at w o u ld , o n e , s h o w th at th e y h a dam o tiv e to re ta lia te a g a in s t h e r. T he fa ct t hat t hey w ent t o s uch gr eat

l engt hs t o cover

up t hi s pr obl em show s t

he len g th s th e y ’ll g o to re talia te a g a in st M s. S m ith . F urth e rm o re , Y o ur H o n o r, it g o e s to ac o urse o f

c o n du c t. M s. S m ith , as w e ll as h e r p h y sic ian , sp e c if ica lly as ked for i nfor m ati on about

t he envir onm ent alcondi ti ons on L i ngl es t ow n H i gh S c h o o l p ri o r t o h e r s tart in g . It is c le arl y o n e o f th e c la im s th is C o urt

h a s le f t in . T he r eas on t

hey w ant ed t hat i nfor m ati on w as s o M s . Sm i t

h coul d know t

he t y pe14

of envir onm ent

s he w as w alki ng i nt o and make s ur e i t w oul dn’ t , as i t

di d, exac er bat e her condi t i on. T he fa ct

t hat t hey covered t

hat up and t he fa ct t hat t hey covered up t

he s i t uati on t o begin w i t

h, Y our H onor , I bel i eve, a conti nui ng cour s e of c onduct . [s i c] B y coveri ng up befor e cl early s how s t hem coveri ng up and denyi ng her

t he infor m ati on about

L i ngl es t ow n w as i nt enti onal , Y our H o n o r. *** D ef en se C o un sel: F ir st of

f, i f th e p urpo se o f th is w it n ess is to imp ea ch M r. M au s n e r, M r. M au s n e r s h o u ldb e g iv e nth e o p p o rt un ity to te s tif

y f ir s t. T h e C o urt: R ig h t. D efe ns e couns el : . . . N um ber t w o, as t he C our t i ndi cat ed pr evi ous ly , t

hi s i s about w het her or not t he Pl aint i ff w as gi ven infor m ati on r egardi ng L ingl es t ow n Juni or H i gh Schooland w het

her s he w as r et al i at ed aga i ns t , not w het her t he s chool dis t ri ct hid info rm at i onfrom every i nd i vidualonE art

h. T hat’ s not w hat t

his case i s about . T he M

o n e ll is s u e s p e rt a into th e c o a c h in g p o s itio nan dth e F M L A o n ly. A nd t hat w as by t hi s cour t ’ s or der . T hat ’ s i t . T he s chooldi s t ri ct i s not on t he h o o kf o r an y o th e r c laim s. C o a c h in g , F M L A lea v e , this w itn e ss is irre lev an t to t ho se i ssues. T h e C o urt : S u s ta iny o ur o b je c tio n . S h e c o m e s o f

f . (A p p . at 47 2 -47 5 . ) D . J MOL M oti on A ft er Sm i t h pr es ent ed her

cas e- i n- chi ef, A ppel l ees or al ly m oved for

J M O L , argui ng t

hat Sm i t h fai l ed t o pr es ent

evi dence s uffi ci ent

for a r eas onabl e j ur

y t o find i n her

favor on any of her cl ai m s . T he C ourt

gr ant ed t he mot i on as t o H as s on and H ol l i ns on t he FM L A i s s ue, becaus e of ins uffi ci ent

evi dence t

hat t hey had per s onal ly

par ti cipat ed in t

he al l eged a cti ons su rro un d in g S m ith ’s b e in g p u t o nF M L A lea v e . T h e C o urt m a d e th e sa m e ru lin g a s to H asson’s i nv olvem ent w i t h the decis i ont o n ot hire Sm i t h as an a ssi st ant coach. T he C ou rt al soT h e tr a n s c ri p t in d ic a te s th a t th e D is tr ic t J u d g e m is s p o k e a t th is p o in t, s a y in g “ h is ,” 4 w hen “he r ” – meani ng Sm i t h’ s – act i ons w er e t he ones as t o w hi ch M azz at es t a’ s act i ons w e re in tu rn re ta lia to ry. 15 g ran tedth e m o tio nw ithre sp e c t to th e S c h o o l D istric t, fin d in g th at th e e v id e n c e w a s le g a lly i ns uffi ci ent

t o es t abl i s h t

hat t he SchoolD i s t

ri ct ’ s i nvol vement

i n t he dec i s i ons r es pecti ng t

he FM L A l eave and t

he coa ching pos i t i on w er e s ubs t anti al ly m oti vat ed by

Sm i t h’ s s peec h. T he C ourt r eas oned t

hat “mer ely s how i ng t

hat t her e w as s peec h t

hat pr ece ded ce rt ain acti on [,]w it h o u t m o re[ , ] i s leg ally

insu ff ici en t to p rese n t to the jury . ” (A p p . at 57 2 . ) T he C ourt

al s o gr ant ed JM O L t o M azz at es t a w i t h r es pect t o as s i gni ng Sm i t

h t o t eac h unfami l i ar

cour s es and denyi ng her a per m anent cl as s r oom , becaus e “t

her e w as an ins uffi ci ent s how i ng t o go t o t

he j ur y as to w het

her [Sm i t h’ s ] acti ons w er e a s ubs t anti aland mot i vati ng 4 fac t or i n hi s acti ons . ” ( A pp. at 573. ) Fi nal ly , t

he C ourt s t at ed t hat , w i t h r es pect t o al li s s ues as to w h ich JM O L h a db e e ng ran ted , the re w a s a lso “ n o e v id e n c e su f f icie n t .. . to g o to th e jury

to fin dthat the P lai n ti ff

incu rredan ac tual injury as to tho se a cti o n s. ” (A p p . at 57 3 . ) T h e o n ly iss u e th at w e n t to th e jury w a s S m ith ’s c laim a g a in st H a ss o nf o r a lleg e d ly w it h h o lding inf

o rm ati o nreg ard ing en v iro n m en talco n d ition s at L JH S . O nthat issue , the jury r et ur ned a ve r di ct

i n favor of H as s on. T he C l er

k of t he C ourt t hen enter ed j udgm ent

i n favor of al lD efe ndant s and aga i ns t Sm i t h on A ugus t

23, 2007. O n Sept ember 21, 2007, Sm i t

h fi l ed a tim e ly n o tic e o f

ap p e a l. E . M oti on f or Sancti onsT he D i s t r i ctC our t had s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on overt hi s act i on pur s uantt o 28 5 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 1 a n d 1 3 4 3 . W e h a v e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 16 O n t he s ame day

j udgm ent

w as ent er ed, Sm i t

h’ s couns elfi l ed a mot i on w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C ourt s eeking s ancti ons agains t A ppel l ees and t

heir couns el , J ames E. E l l i s on, cl ai m i ng t hat E l l i son improperly

fai l ed to accept s ervi ce on beh al f of H asson an d H oll i ns, m ade f al se r epr es ent ati ons i n t

he A ppel l ees ’ ans w er , and i m pr operly r ai s ed t he at t or ney - cl i ent pri vi l ege du ring dep osi t i on s. T he D i st ri ct C ou rt den i ed the m oti onbecau se i t w as untim el y

andbecau se th e C o urt d e te rm in e dth at E llis o nh a da c te ding o o df a ith . I I I . D i s cus s i on 5 O nap p ea l, S m it

hclaim s tha t t

h e D ist ri ct C o urt erredb y g ran tin g p arti al sum m ary j udgm ent , by

denyi ng her

m ot i on for

a conti nuance , by

excludi ng H oachl ander ’ s t es ti m ony at t ri al , by grant i ng A pp el l ees’ JM O L m oti on , andby den yi ng her m oti onfor sanct i on s. W e e x e rc is e p le n ary re v ie w o v e r o rd e rs g ra n tin g s um m ary ju d g m e n t. Laure n v. D e Fla m in is , 480 F. 3d 259, 265- 66 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T hus , w e w i l laff i r m t hos e or der s i f our r evi ew r evea l s t

hat t her e i s no genuine i s s ue of mat eri al fac t and t hat t he movi ng par

t y i s enti t l ed to ju d g m e n t a s am atte r o f law . I d. at 2 6 6 . Ind e term in in g w h e th e r su m m ary ju d g m e n t is w arran ted , w e re v iew th e f a c ts inth e lig h t m o st f

av o rab le to th e n o n -m o v in g p arty , an ddraw a ll re a s o n ab le f

a c tu a l in f e re n c e s inth e p arty ’s f

av o r. I d. W e al s o exerci s e pl enar y r evi ew over

an o rd e r g ra n tin g o r d e n yin g aJ M O L m o tio n . Go o d ma n v . P a . T

u rn p ik eCo mm. , 293 F. 3d 655, 6 6 4 -6 5 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e re v ie w re le v an c e d e c is io n s f o r ab u s e o f

d is c re tio n . P

f ei f f er v. M a r io n C tr . A re a S

c h . D is t., 917 F. 2d 779, 781 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . L i kew i s e, w e r evi ew a di s t r i ct17

c o urt ’s ru lin g o nc o n tinu an c e s an ds an c tio n s f o r ab u s e o f

d is c re tio n . F

ont ana v. U ni ted B onding I

ns . Co. , 468 F. 2d 168, 169 ( 3d C i r . 1972) ( “C onti nuance of t ri ali s a matt er

of di s cr eti on w i t

h t he t r i alcour t w hi ch w i l lnot

be di s t ur bed unl es s a cl ear

abus e has been sh o w n .”); N

aviant M ar keting Soluti ons, I

nc. v. Larr

y Tucke r , I nc. , 3 3 9 F . 3 d1 8 0 , 1 8 5 (3dC ir . 2003) ( “Thi s C ourt

r evi ew s a D i s t

r i ct C ourt ’ s deci s i on on a mot i on for s ancti ons under

Rul e 37 f o r ab u se o f

d isc re tio n .”); s ee al

s o Sim m er

m an v. Cor ino , 2 7 F . 3 d5 8 , 6 1 ( 3 dCir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( “ On r evi ew , w e apply

an abus e of di s cr eti on s t andard t o al las pect s of t he di s t ri ct cour t ’ s Rul e 11 d eterm ination . ”). A . M o tio n s fo r Su m m a ryJ

u d gm e n t W e foll ow a t

hree- st ep b urden-shi ft i ng process w hen exam i ning a publi c em ployee’s § 1 9 8 3 c la im o f

re ta lia tio nf

o r e n g a g in g ina c tiv ity p ro te c te dun d e r th e F ir s t A m e n dm e n t. H i ll v. C i t y of Scranton , 411 F. 3d 118, 125 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “Fi r s t , t he empl oy ee must

s how t hat t he a c tiv ity is i nf

a c t p ro te c te d . S econ d, t

he em ployee m ust

show t hat t he p rot ect ed activit

y ‘w as a s ubs t anti alfac t or

i n t he al l eged r et al i at or

y acti on. ’ T hi r d, t

he empl oy er

m ay defe at t he empl oy ee’ s cl aim by

demonst r ati ng t hat t he s ame adver s e ac ti on w oul d have taken pl ace i n t he abs ence of t

he pr ot ected conduc t . ” I d. ( ci t ati ons om i tt ed) . W hen t her e i s m or e t

han one defe ndant , t

he empl oy ee must

s how t hat eac h defe ndant

i ndi vi dual ly

par ti cipat ed or

acqui es ced ine a c ho f

th e a lle g e dc o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s . C. N . v. R idgew ood B d. of

Educ. , 430 F. 3d 159, 1 7 3 (3dC ir . 2 0 0 5 ); R obins on v. C i t y of P i tt s bur gh , 1 2 0 F .3 d1 2 8 6 , 1 2 9 4 (3 dC ir . 1 9 9 7 ).A s s t at ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , “[u] ndert he s econd pr ong of t he r et al i at i on t es t , t he 6 cour t m us t det er m i ne w het hert he ac t s at t r i but ed t o D efe ndant s ar e adve r s e empl oy m ent act i ons and . . . t hen exa m i ne w het herPl ai nt i ff’ s s peec h w as a s ubs t ant i al or m ot i vat i ng f a c to r i n a n ya d v e rs e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n s ta k e n .” (A p p . a t 4 9 -5 0 .) 18 A s w e not ed in A z

zaro v. Count

y of A llegheny , 110 F. 3d 968, 976 ( 3d C i r . 1997) , “t he e xp re ss iv e rig h ts o f

p ub lic e m p lo y e e s are n o t as e xp an siv e a s th o se o f c iti z e n s o u tsid e th e p ub lic w or k for ce. ” Ther efor e, “[o] nly a s ubs et of s peec h t

hat i s pr ot ect ed for

ci ti zens i s al s o pr ot ected for publ i c empl oy ees . ” I

d. H o w e v e r, p ub lic e m p lo y e e s d o h av e aF irst A m e n dm e n t rig h t to s p e ako nm atte rs o f

p ub lic c o n c e rn . B rennan v. N or ton , 350 F. 3d 399, 412 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “A publ i c empl oy ee ha s a cons t i t ut i onalri ght

t o s peak on matt er s of publ i c conc er n w i t hout fear of retali ati o n . ”) ( quoting B al dass are v. N

ew Jer s ey , 2 5 0 F .3 d1 8 8 , 1 9 4 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 1 )). H e re , it is undi s put ed t

hat Sm i t h’ s s peec h per

t ained t o a matt er

of publ i c conc er

n and t hus s ati s fi es s t ep o n e . T h e b att l e i s o v e r s t e p t wo , wh i c h , a s n o t e db y

t h e Di s t ri c t Co urt , a c t

u a l ly i n v o l v e s t

wo sub -st ep s. F ir st, co urt s m u st ex am ine th e c o m p lain edo f a cts an dd eterm ine w h ethe r t h ey are 6 s uffi ci ent t o gi ve ri s e t o a Fi r s t

A m endment

r et al i ati on cl ai m . I n t

hi s C i r cui t , t

he t es t for d e term in in g w h e th e r ana lleg e da c t o f re taliatio nis s u f

f icie n t to g iv e rise to are taliatio nc laim is w hether t he act i s “suffi ci ent to d et er a pers onof o rdinary fi rm ness from exerci sing [her] Fi rs t A m e n dm e n t r ig h ts .” M

cK ee v. H art , 436 F. 3d 165, 170 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he t hr es hol d for m eeti ng t hi s s t andard i s l ow ; al lt

hat t he empl oy ee must

s how i s t hat t he ac t s at t ribut ed t o t

he d e f e n d an t are m o re th and e m in im is . O ’Con no r v. C i t y of N ew ark, 440 F. 3d 125, 127- 28 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). E v e nw h e nc o n du c t f a lls b e lo w th at m in im um thre sh o ldan dis n o t b y itse lf19

a c tio n ab le, ap lain tiff

m ay still satisf

y th e tes t b y

sh o w in g ac am p a ig no f

h ara ss m e n t th at, a lth o u g hd e m in im is inits is o late dd e ta ils , is s ub s tan tia l du e to its c um u la tiv e im p a c t. B rennan v. N or ton , 3 5 0 F .3 d3 9 9 , 4 1 9 n .1 6 , 4 2 2 n .1 7 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Suppan v. D adonna , 203 F. 3d 228, 23 5 (3d C i r. 20 00 ). S econ d, cou rt s m ust exam i ne w hether

t he em ployee’s speech w as a s ub s tan tia l o r m o tiv atin g f a c to r f o r th e a lle g e da c ts . Suppan , 203 F. 3d at 236. W e have not ed th at: T o es t abl i s h t

he r equi s i t e caus alconnec ti on a pl ainti ff us ual ly m us t pr ove eit her (1 ) anunu su a lly

su g g e stiv e tem p o ra l p ro x im ity b e tw e e nth e p ro tec teda c tiv ity an dth e a lleg e d ly

re talia to ry

a c tio n , o r (2 ) ap atterno f an tag o n ism c o up ledw ith t i m i ng t o est abli sh a cau sall i nk . In t he ab sence o f t

hat pr oo f, t

he p l ai nti ff m ust s how t hat fr om t he evi dence gl eane d fr om t he r ecord as a w hol e t

he t ri er of t he fac t s houl d i nfer

caus ati on. L a u re n v . D e

Fla m in is , 4 8 0 F . 3 d2 5 9 , 2 6 7 (3dC ir . 2 0 0 7 ). S m it hco n tend s the D ist

ri ct C o urt erredin tw o w ay s in g ran tin g p arti al sum m ary j udgm ent and JM O L . Fi r s t , r elyi ng on B rennan and Suppan , Sm i t h cl ai m s t hat t he D i s t ri ct C ourt i m pr operly

analyzed e ach a l l eged a ct of r et al i ati on i n i s ol ati on and fa i l ed t o exami ne t he cumul ati ve im pact

of al lt he al l egedly

r et al i at or y acti ons . Second, Sm i t

h s ay s , t he C ourt ’ s er

r or i n s egr egati ng her

cl aim s i nt o di s cr et e adve r s e empl oy m ent acti ons w as compounded by t he C ourt ’ s i m pr operly

l ooki ng “s i m ply

at t he evi dence of t

he indi vi dualdefe ndant ’ s di r ect inv o lv e m e n t ine a c hiso late da c t to d e term in e th e ir liab ility .” (A p p e llan t’s O p . B r. at 1 7 .) W h ile Sm i t h acknow l edges t

hat “t he noti on of ac t

ualpar ti cipati on . . . i n generali s s ti l lt he gui di ng p rin ciple” (A p p ell an t’ s O p . B r. at 17 ), sh e c o n tend s tha t, un d er R obins on v. C i t y of P i tt s bur gh , evi dence of per s onali nvol vement i s not r equir ed in cas es s uch as her s . A ccordi ng t o Sm i t h:20

W her e t he ac t i onabl e conduc t

i ncludes bot

h di s cr et e adve r s e empl oy m ent a c tio n s a n dm o re g e n e ra l p attern o f b e h av io r a sp e c ts, anin d iv idu a l ca nb e liab le under ei t her s o l ong as t

he l egalcondi ti ons ar e met , and t hey ar e in t hi s cas e - eac h of t he indi vi dualD efe ndant s , and t he SchoolD i s t

ri ct i t s el f, i s s how n t o have vari ous ly par t i cipat ed in acti ons t

hat cons ti t ut e di s cr et e adve r s e empl oy m ent acti ons , and a c ol l ecti ve pat t er n of r et al i ati on, and t

he l ow er cour t compl et ely

cut o f f th e f u ll sc o p e o f

P lain tiff’s c laim s o nsu m m ary ju d g m e n t. ( A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at

23- 24. ) Sm i t

h goes on t o s t at e t

hat becaus e t

he D i s t ri ct C ourt appl i ed the w ron g stan d ard , h er c lai m s w ere “irret ri ev ab ly p arse d , an du ltim ately

lost, w it h o u t [h er] having been a

bl e t o pr es ent

t he evi dence i n i t s enti r et

y on t he t r ue hi s t or y of t he fa ct s and c ir c um s tan c e s s urr o un d in g h e r c la im s un d e r S e c tio n1 9 8 3 .” (A p p e llan t’ s O p . B r. a t 1 7 -1 8 .) I n B rennan , one of t

he ca s es Sm i t

h ci t es i n cl ai m i ng t

he D i s t ri ct C ourt er r ed by analyzing t

he r et al i at or

y act s i ndi vi dual ly , w e ana lyzed t he pl aint i ff’ s cl ai m s pr eci s ely t he w ay t h e D i s t r i c t C o urt d i dh e r e . W e i d e n t i f

i e de l e v e nr e t a l i at o r

y a c t s , e x am i n e de a c hi n d i v i du a l ly, and found t

hat , w hi l e s om e of t

he ac t s di d ri s e to t

he l evelof a Fir s t

A m endment

vi ol ati on, ot her s di d not

becaus e t

hey w er e ins uffi ci ent

t o det er a per s on of or di nar

y fir m nes s fr om e x e rc is in g h is o r h e r r ig h ts . B rennan , 3 5 0 F .3 dat 4 1 8 -1 9 . W ithre sp e c t to th e a c tio n ab le conduct , w e found t

hat i n s om e ins t ance s t

he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci ent t o det er m i ne w hi ch d e f e n d an ts w e re re s p o n s ib le f o r th e v ari o u s a c ts . I

d. Fi nal ly , w e deter

m i ned t hat , even w hen th e e v id e n c e w a s s u f

f icie n t to sh o w w h at ea c hd e f e n d an t h a dd o n e , it

w a s in su f

f icie n t to es t abl i s h t

hat t he pl aint i ff’ s cons t i t

ut i onal ly pr ot ect ed s peec h m oti vat ed t he def endant s t o t ake a c tio na g a in s t th e p la in tif f . I d.21

Jus t as i n B rennan , t

he D i s t r i ct C ourt her e i denti fi ed t

he al l eged ret al i at or

y act s and d e term in e dth at so m e a c ts p o ten tially ro se to th e lev e l o f

aF irst A m e n dm e n t v io latio nw h ile o thers d id n o t. T h e D ist

ri ct C o urt n ex t exa m inedthe e v iden ce o f e ac hd ef en d an t’ s i nvol vement

i n t hos e ac t s w hi ch w er e pot enti al ly vi ol ati ve of t

he Fi r s t A m endment , and t

he C ourt r i ght ly l i m i t ed ea ch def

endant ’ s pot enti all i abi l i t y t o t he ac t s for

w hi ch t her e w as evi dence o f th at d e f e n d an t’s p e rso n a l inv o lv e m e n t. T hu s, th e D istric t C o urt f o llo w e do ur ap p ro a c hin B rennan an dd idn o t err ing ran tin g p artial s um m ary ju d g m e n t. A lth o u g hS m ithis c o rre c t th at a pat t er n of de mi ni m i s conduct

can be come acti onabl e in appr opri at e cir cumst ance s , t he fa ct s of t hi s cas e do not

pr es ent t he s ort of cam pai gn of haras s m ent t hat w as at i s s ue in Suppan . R athe r, t he fa ct s ar e more akin t o t hos e in B rennan , andt

he D i st ri ct C ou rt corr ect ly analyzed the case under t hat fr amew or

k. F urt h er, co n trary

to S m it h ’s asse rtion s, a p lain ti ff

m u st stil l sho w ea ch d ef en d an t’ s per s onali nvol vement

i n t he r et al i at or

y act s i n cas es i nvol vi ng a cam pai gn of har as s m ent . O ur hol di ng i n R obins on i n no w ay s upport s Sm i t

h’ s ver s i on of t

he l aw , as w e pl ainly

s t at ed t hat “a defe ndant i n a § 1983 ac t i on m us t

have p e rs o n a l in v o lve m e n t i n t he al l eged w r ongs . ” 120 F. 3d at 1294 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . I n R obins on w e sim p ly o b se rv e dth at, w ithre sp e c t to s uper vi s or y l i abi l i t y , t he r equir ement

of per s onali nvol vement m ay be s ati s fi ed by

pr ovi ng a s up e rv is o r’ s “ a c tu a l kn o w le d g e an da c qu ie s c e n c e ” inth e a lle g e dw ro n g s . I d. F in a lly , the D istric t C o urt in d ica tedth at, alth o u g hso m e o f th e c o m p lain e do f

a c ts d id not r i s e t o t he l evelof a c ons t i t

ut i onalvi ol ati on, evi dence of t hos e ac t s coul d never

t hel es s be22

r el evant . For

exampl e, w i t

h r es pect t o M azz at es t a’ s s t at ement s t o H oachl ander , t he C ourt s t at ed

“ [ w ]h ile th e se w o rd s o r a c ts d o n o t p ro v id e th e b a sis f o r are taliatio nc laim interm s o f in jury to [Sm i t h] , t hey do s ugges t

t hat t he adve r s e empl oy

m ent acti ons des cribed above w er e mot i vat ed b y an imu s en g en d ere db y

[S m it h ’s] pub li c sp ee ch . ” (A p p . at 59 . ) T hu s, the D ist ri ct C o urt ’s s um m ar y j udgm ent

or der s di d not

pr event Sm i t h fr om “pr es enti ng t

he evi dence i n i t s enti r et

y on t he t r ue hi s t or y of t he fa ct s and cir cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng her

cl ai m s under

Secti on 1983” (A p p e llan t’ s O p . B r. a t 1 7 -1 8 ), a s s h e n o w c la im s . B . J MOL M oti on W i t h r es pect t o t he cl aim s t

hat s ur vi ved s um m ar

y j udgm ent , Sm i t

h argues t hat , i n l i ght of t he fa ct t hat t he s t andards gover

ni ng m ot i ons for

s um m ar y j udgm ent

and J M O L ar e t

he s ame, t h e Di s t r i c t Co urt e r r e di ng r an t i n g J M OL b e c au s e t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e dat

t ri a lwa s t h e s ame as t he evi dence at

s um m ar y j udgm ent . C ont

r ar y t o Sm i t h’ s as s er ti on, how ever , t

he evi dence pr es ent ed at

t r i alw as not

t he s ame as t

he evi dence at

t he s um m ar

y j udgm ent

s t age. For e x am p le, a t su m m ary

ju d g m e n t, t

h e D istric t C o urt re liedo nS m ith ’s d e p o sitio ntes tim o ny th at a s oci als t udi es t eac her

i n her fir s t y ear of t eac hi ng at

new C D H S r ece i ved a pe r m anent cl as s r oom f o r th e 2 0 0 5 -0 6 sc h o o l y e ar, w h ile S m ithw a s a ss ig n e dto b e af lo ater . A t trial, h o w e v e r, S m ith a dm itt e dth at th e av a ilab le c las sro o m f o r th e 2 0 0 5 -0 6 sc h o o l ye ar w a s g iv e nto atea c h e r w ith m or e bui l di ng s eni or i t

y t han s he had, and s he w as unabl e t o s how t hat s he w as ever

deni ed a p e rm an e n t cla ss ro o m inf av o r o f atea c h e r w ithles s b u ild in g se n io rity . S im ilarly , S m ith23

a dmi tt e d at

t r i a lt hat s he ha d n o e vi de nc e t

hat M a z z at e s t aa s s i gn e d h e r t o t e a c h U. S. G o v e rn m e n t an dU .S . H is to ry inre ta lia tio nf o r h e r p ub lic s p e e c h . W i t h r es pect t o t he FM L A l eave , Sm i t

h w as unabl e t o pr es ent

any evi dence at

t ri al s h o wi n g t h at Ha s s o no r

Ho l l i n s h a dany

i n v o lv e me n t

i nt h e d e c i s i o nt o ap p r o v e t

h at l e av e . By Sm i t h’ s ow n admi s s i on, t

he SchoolB oar d m ade t

he dec i s i on t o pl ace her

on FM L A l eave , and s he w as unaw ar e w het

her H as s on pl ayed any

r ol e in t hat deci s i on. H ol l i ns t es ti fi ed t hat s he had no i nvol vement

w i t h t he dec i s i on t o gr ant

Sm i t h FM L A l eave , and Sm i t h pr oduced no e vi dence t o t he cont r ar y . Furt her , t he evi dence at

t ri als how ed t

hat t he SchoolB oar d m ade t

he dec i s i on b a se do nS m ith ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s a n dd ire c tiv e s f ro m h e r d o c to rs, n o t o u t o f ad e sire to re taliate a g a in s t h e r f

o r h e r c o n s titu tio n a lly p ro te c te ds p e e c h . W i t h r es pect t o t he coa ching pos i ti on, Sm i t h admi tt ed t

hat s he had no know l edge of H as s on’ s i nvol vement , and t he t r i alt es ti m ony

s how ed t hat H as s on had no invol vement i n t he deci s i on. Sm i t

h w as al s o unabl e t o r efut e t es ti m ony pr offe r ed by

A ppel l ees t

hat t he School B o ardd e n iedh e r th e c o a c h in g p o sitio nso lely b e c au se o f

h e r h e a lthc o n d iti o nan dth e n e e dto p re v e n t h e r f

ro m b e in g e xp o s e dto m o ldat th e o ldC D H S b u ild in g . O n appea l , Sm i t

h has not ci t ed any evi dence t o s upport

her cont enti on t

hat J M O L w as i m pr operly

gr ant ed. R at

her , s he incor

r ectly cl ai m s t hat t he evi dence at

s um m ar y j udgm ent

and at trial w e re th e sa m e an da lleg e s th at th e D istric t C o urt f a iledto un d e rstan dth e in f e re n c e s to w h ich sh e w a s e n titled . W e d o n o t ag re e . A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o urt’s J M O L ru lin g w ill be uphel d.24

C . T es tim ony of

D ebra H oachl ander Sm i t h cont ends t

hat t he D i s t r i ct C ourt i m pr operly

excluded H oachl ander ’ s t es ti m ony as i r r el evant . “R el evant

evi dence m eans evi dence having any t endenc y t o m ake t

he exi s t ence of an y f a c t th at is o f

c o n se qu e n c e to th e d e term in atio no f th e a c tio nm o re p ro b ab le o r le ss p ro b ab le t han i t w oul d be w i t

hout t he evi dence . ” F ED . R . E V ID . 4 0 1 . “A ll rele v an t ev id e n c e is admi s s ibl e, exce pt

as ot her w i s e pr ovi ded by

t he C ons ti t

uti on of t he U ni t ed St at es , by

A ct of C o n g ress, by

thes e ru les, o r by

o ther ru les p resc rib edb y the S up rem e C o urt

p ursua n t to stat

u tory aut hor i t y . E vi dence w hi ch i s not r el evant i s not admi s s ibl e. ” F ED . R . E V ID . 4 0 2 . Sm i t h argues t hat H oachl ander ’ s t es ti m ony w as r el evant

t o s how t

hat M azz at es t a w as m ot i vat ed by

anim os i t y t ow ards Sm i t

h, and not

s om e “ot her w i s e innocent

and unint er es t ed conce r n for her per s onalaff

air s . ” O n t

hi s poi nt , w e are incl i ned t o agr ee w i t h Sm i t h. I ndeed, t he D i s t r i ct C ourt ’ s s um m ar

y j udgm ent

or der s ugges t s t

hat t he conve r s ati ons bet

w een M azz at es t a and H oachl ander w er e r el evant

for t hat ver y r eas on: M s. H o a c h lan d e r te stif

iedsh e f e lt t h at D e f e n d an t M a z z ates ta w a s a sk in g h e r to for w ard Pl aint i ff’ s emai l s i n an ef for t t o di s cr edi t

Pl ainti ff. W hi l e t

hes e w or ds or act s do not

pr ovi de t he bas i s for

a r et al i ati on cl ai m i n t er

m s of inj ur

y t o Pl ainti ff, they d o su g g est t

h at t h e a dv erse em p loy

m en t acti o n s d esc rib edab o v e w ere m ot i vat ed by

anim us engende r ed by

Pl ainti ff’ s publ i c s peec h. ... Fr om t he for egoing, t

he cour t finds t hat t he Pl aint i ff ha s s ati s fi ed her s um m ar y j udgm ent b urd e no f a d du c in g e v id e n c e th at h e r e x e rc ise o f f re e sp e e c hw a s a“ sub stan tial” or “mot i vati ng” fa ct or

i n t he adve r s e empl oy

m ent acti ons al l eged. (A p p . at 59 . ) It

is t h ere fo re lik ely

that the D ist

ri ct C o urt erredin p rev en tin g M s. H o ac h land er’s testim o n y o nthat p o int, b u t w e n ee dn o t reso lve th e issu e b ec au se, alt h o u g hH o ac h land er’s te s tim o n y m ay h av e b e e nre le v an t, its e x c lu s io nw a s h arm le s s .25

F e d e ra l Ru le o f

E v id e n c e 1 0 3 (a ) p ro v id e s th at an e v id e n tiary ru lin g is n o t re v e rsib le er r or “unl es s a s ubs t anti alr i ght of a part y i s aff ect ed . . . . ” F ED . R . E V ID .1 0 3 (a ). “U n d e r th is te st, a re v iew ing co urt

sh o u ld af

firm the D ist

ri ct C o urt d esp it e the erro r i f th e re v iew ing co urt beli eves ‘t

hat it i s h igh ly p ro b a b let

hat t he er r or di d not cont ribut e t o t he j udgm ent . ’ ” R enda v. King , 347 F. 3d 550, 556 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quoti ng M cQ ueene y v. W i l m ington Trus t

Co. , 779 F. 2d 9 1 6 , 9 2 4 (3 dC ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( e m p h a s is ino ri g in a l) . T he evi dence at

t r i alover w helm i ngly

s how s t hat M azz at es t a as s i gned Sm i t h di ffe r ent cour s es t han s he pr evi ous ly

t aught and deni ed her

a per m anent cl as s r oom at

new C D H S on the bas i s of bui l di ng s eni or i t y , not out of a de s i r e t o puni s h Sm i t h or r et al i at e aga i ns t

her for her cons t i t ut i onal ly pr ot ected s peec h. Furt

her , Sm i t h began s peaking out

on t he envir onm ent al condi t i ons at

ol d C D H S dur i ng t

he 2001- 02 s chooly ear

and i s s ued her

pr es s r el eas e in June of 2002. T he conve r s ati on bet w een M azz at es t a and H oachl ander al s o t ook pl ace i n June of 2002, w hi l e M azz at es t a’ s al l egedly r et al i at or y act s occur

r ed more t

han t w o y ear s l at er , i n t

he fa l lof 2 0 0 4 . T hu s, H o a c h lan d e r’s tes tim o n y d o e s n o t ch an g e th e f

a c t th at, w ithre sp e c t to M a z z ates ta’ s a c tio n s, S m ithw a s u n ab le to sh o w (1 ) anunu su a lly su g g e stiv e tem p o ra l p ro x im ity betw een the prot ect ed activit y andt he all eged ly

retal i at ory

act i on , (2) a patt ern of an t ago nis m coupl ed w i t

h t i m i ng t o es t abl i s h a caus all i nk, or ( 3) evi dence as a w hol e from w hi ch t he t r i er of f a c t c o u ldin f

e r c au s atio n . See Laure n , 480 F. 3d at 267. T hus , i t

i s hi ghly pr obabl e t

hat t he e rr o r d idn o t c o n tr ib u te to th e ju d g m e n t.26

Sm i t h’ s cl aim s w i t

h r es pect t o t he s ancti ons and her

m oti on for

conti nuance do not w arran t d isc u ss io n , as sh e h a s n o t cite dasin g le c a se to sup p o rt h e r arg um e n ts an dh a s f a iledto s h o w th at th e D is tr ic t C o urt ab u s e dits d is c re tio n . I V . C oncl usi on F o r a ll o f th e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o urt .