F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au g. 21, 20 08 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1002 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 06- 8037 1- CV -W JZ RALPH BRILLINGER, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CITY OF LAKE W ORTH, W ILLIAM SM ITH, PATRICK HAMP SHIRE, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 21, 200 8) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN Aand KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Ra lphBr ill ing er , pr oc ee din g pr o se , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the Ci ty of L ak e W orth i n hi s e m

plo ym en t dis cr im inatio n and c ivi l r igh ts a ct ion s. B ri lli nge r ha d a lle ge d th at the Ci ty ( 1) fi re d hi m be ca use of his a ge , in vio la tio n of

the A ge D isc ri m inatio n in E m plo ym en t A ct

( “ A D E A ”) and the F lor ida Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

( “ FC RA ”) ; ( 2) re ta liate d a ga ins t hi m

be ca use of his c om pla int s of dis cr im inatio n, in vio la tio n of the AD EAand the FCRA ; (3) irr ationally treate d him

differ ently

than other em ploy ees, in viol ation of the Equal Protec tion Clause; and (4) viol ated his free spe ec h r igh ts b y

f ir ing him in re ta liatio n f

or f ili ng a law sui t a ga ins t the c ity , in vi ol at io n o f § 1 98 3 a ndth e FCRA. I. Background Brillinger wa s an eighteen-y ear veteran of the C ity ’ s police departm ent. B y Apr il 2004 , he ha d a tta ine d th e rank o f se rg eant. D ur ing the r el ev an t t im e pe ri od, the City had two w ay s to com

pensate officer s who wor ked bey ond th eir norm al hour s. C al l- out

pay w as due w he n an of

fi ce r w as c al le d to r et

ur n to duty dur ing his of f hour s. A n of

fi ce r aw ar de d c al l- out

pay w as c om pe nsate d ti m e- an d- a- ha lf for a m inim

um of three hours. Over

tim e, on the oth er hand, wa s also calculated usi ng t im e- an d- a- ha lf

but the re w as no thr ee -h our

m ini m um . T he thr ee -h our3

m ini m um w as an a tte m

pt t o c om pe nsate of

fi ce rs f or the e xtr a tr oubl e of

r et ur nin g to work. The parties do not d isput e that call-out pay did no t apply

to an officer
w ho arr ive d a t the statio n sh ortly be fo re his shi ft , but

be gan hi s du tie s be fo re his s h i f ta c tu a l l y b e g a n . I n s u c h ac a s e , th e o f f i c e r mi g h tb e e n t i t l e dt o o v e rt i me p a y, bu t n ot cal l-o ut pa y . In April 2004, Br illing er w as assigned to the m orning s hift, which began at 7:30 am . His usual routine was to arr ive around 7 am , c heck em ail, and prepare fo r the m or

nin g br ie fi ng. ( It

is undi sput ed

that a pol ic e of fi ce r fo llo w ing thi s routine would no t ordinarily be com pensated for this.) O n April 4, Brillinger ar ri ve d a s us ua l and h eard

S er ge an t O dum

on the pho ne w ithdis pa tc h c onc er nin g a situation with a gunm an who had barric aded him self in a house and had hostages. The tactical patrol for ce ( SWAT team) and containm ent team s had been called to the scene. Brillinger w as not a m em ber of either

team . Dispatch inf orm ed O dum that anothe r pe rs on w as ne ed ed a t the sc en e, but

a cc or din g to the re co rd s, O dum

did not se nd any one f

ro m the statio n to a ssi st, and B ri lli nge r did no t re po rt t o t he sce ne . Of ficer Meloy wa s a m em

ber of the containm ent team . Earlier that
m or nin g—p ri or

to his shi ft

—he w as pa ge d a t ho m e. A lth oughhe did not im m ed ia te ly r ec ei ve the pa ge be ca

use he ha d m isp la ce d hi s pa ge r, he le ar ne d of4

the inc ide nt o ve r his r ad io. A ft er r ea liz ing the re w as an in ci de nt, he qui ck ly ga the re d hi s w ea

pon an d r ep orte d to the statio n. A ft er arr ivi ng at the statio n, he was su m m on edto th e sc en e, whe re h e rem ai ne d fo r se ve ral ho ur s. O f f i c e r M e l o y r e qu e s t e dc a l l
- o u tp a y a n dw a s aw a r d e di t . B r i l l i n g e r , O du m, an d O ff ic er Co nf orti— w ho a lso w as a t the statio n e ar ly that m or nin g—a lso subm itt ed payro ll sli ps f

or c al l- out pay , a lth oughnon e of

the m w er e ca lle d to the sc en e o r rep or te d t o t he sce ne . The supervisor, upon learning that Brillinger, O dum , and Conforti were
n e i t h e r a tth e s c e n e n o r

w e r e c a l l e db a c kt o w o rkw h i l e o f f du t y, d e n i e do v e rt i me and launched an inv estigation into th e re quest. Internal A ffair s determ ined that Br ill ing er , O dum , and C onf orti ha d be ena t the statio n pr ep ar ing f or the ir shi ft and th us ha d n ot be en en ti tl edto cal l-o ut pa y . Fo llo w ing the inv es tig at ionof Br ill ing er , O dum , and C onf orti, D ep uty Ch i ef Ha m p s h i re re co m

m en d edth at Br i l l i n g erb e d emo t edb ec au s e B ri l l i n g er ’s conduct was a der eliction of duty , ther e w as no evidence that he had been called out , and i t w as not

r ea sona ble f or Br ill ing er

to have hon es tly

int er pr et ed the c al lout po licy

in a m anner that w ouldentitle him to call-out pay . Ham

pshire indi cated that he w as sus pic iou s of the be havio r be ca

use Br ill ing er

ha d m any

y ears on the fo rc e, ha d pu t i n f

or ove rt im e w hil e the sup er vis or w as out of town, and d id n otAmongthese numer ous disciplinary actions, B ril l i n ger w as re primanded f or submitting 1 overtime slips for two missed lunche s when he was not entitled to overtime pa y . 5 tell the other officer s at the station to put in for call-out pay . Ham pshire co nsi de re d th e re que st f

or c al l- out pay af al se r ep ort. C hie f Sm ithc onsi de re d th e recom m endation, held a pre-deter m ination hearing, and ult im ately term inated Br ill ing er , O dum , and C onf orti fo r vio la tio ns o f the de partm en t’ s po lic ie s on truthfulness , f

alse docum ents, and unsatisfactory perform ance of duties. In reac hing this conclus ion, Sm ith consi dered Br illing er’ s y ears of service and that th ere was no reas on ab le ba si s fo r Bri ll in ge r to be li ev e h e h adbe en cal le d o ut . Sm ith also cons idered the num erous instances of prior discipl inary actions, w hich inc lud ed w ri tte n r ep ri m an ds and s uspe nsi ons fo r, a m ong oth er vio la tio ns, a t l ea st one ins tanc e of

payro ll iss ue s and o ve rt im e re que sts . S m ithte sti fi ed that he 1 be lie ve d B ri lli nge r int en tio na lly put in fo r ove rt im e to whic h he w as not e nti tle d, an d th is i m

pa ct ed his abil ity

to do h is j ob. S m ithstate d B ri lli nge r co uld not “be tr ust ed to handl e ba sic sup er

vis or y r es pons ibi lit ie s or

r es pons ibi lit ie s f

or any em plo y ee to ac co unt

f or the ir ti m e an d to do s o a cc ur at el y . ” S m ithe xpl ai ne d th at , be ca use thi s w as not

the f ir st i nst an ce of

suc h avio la tio n, Br ill ing er ha d no cred ib il it y

wit h h im . Bril li ng er was ter m in at edon Nov em be r 30 , 20 04 . Br ill ing er appe al ed the te rm inatio n purs uant t o th e Ci ty ’ s C oll ec tiv e Barg ai nin g A gr ee m en t ( “ CB A ”) and the m atte r w as se nt t o arb itr at ion . F oll ow ing6

the arb itr at ionhe ar ing , the arb itr at or dis ag re ed

w iththe te rm inatio n de ci sio n and ordered Br illing er r einstated with a dem otion . The C ity com plied and reinstated Br ill ing er in 2005 w ithade m oti on f ro m se rg eant t o patr olm an , w itha corresponding salary

reduction of about 18 %. T he CBAstates that when an officer is dem oted, his salary

is to be decreased by

a m ini m um of 5 %. Br ill ing er f ile d su it. B ri lli nge r al le ge d hi s te rm inatio n w as the r es ult of a ge discrim ination . Specifica lly , he claim ed that other sim ilarly situated y oung er of fi ce rs w er e not

dis ci pli ne d f

or the sam e co nduc t. B ri lli nge r ide nti fi ed the f o l l o w i n g o f

f i c e r s wh o we r e tr e a t e dmo r e f a v o r ab l y: Of

f i c e r s M e l o y, M c C a rt h y, Bo liv er , V ie ir a, and P ila lis . B ri lli nge r cl ai m ed that the Ci ty

r et al ia te d a ga ins t hi m by de ny ing e qua l pay

and r et ir em en t be ne fi ts b ec au se of his te sti m ony

in a co w orke r’ s arb itr at ionw hic h sp anne d f ro m 199 9- 2003 , his part ic ipatio n inac ow orke r’ s E E O C c om

pla int in 2001 , and h is o w n E E O C c om pla int . B ri lli nge r al so as se rt ed a“ cl as s of

one ” E qua l P ro te ct ionc la im , statin g th at the Ci ty ir ratio na lly treated him

differ ently

than other em

ploy ees. Finally , B rillinger further a lleged that the Ci ty

vio la te d hi s F ir st A m en dm en t r igh t t o f re e spe ec h by

te rm inatin g hi m af te r he f ile d alaw sui t a ga ins t the Ci ty in 2002 f or inv as ionof

pr iva cy inIn 2002, Br illinger and other s filed a cl ass ac tion lawsuit ag ainst the City afte r they 2 d i s c o v e r e d t h a t th e C i ty h a d b e e nr e c o r d i n gc a l l s m a d e t o / f r o mth e n o n - e m e r g e n c y

l i n e s . In pa rt ic ula r, wh ile of

f- duty , B ri lli ng e r s po ke to h is n ow -w if e L or i, who wa s a

dis patc he r. Th e c a lls , ma de to/ fr om t

he no n- e me rg e nc y lin e s we re re c or de d a nd us e d in dis c ipl ina

ry pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t L ori. Br illinger

and L ori woul d fre quently call ea ch other

on these lines and ta lk about “ca sual thi ng s” su c h as the Je rr

y Spr ing e r S ho w. B ri lli ng e r c omp la ine d o f t he re c or din g s and

fi le d s uit . After g rieving the di scipline, L ori was reinstated. The Ci ty eventua lly won that ca se on summary jud g me nt. 7 connection with the City ’ s decision to rec ord calls m ade on the non-em ergency pol ic e lin es . 2 T he Ci ty m ove d f or sum m ar y j udgm en t whic h th e co urt gr an te d. T his is the ap pe al fro m

th atde ci si on . II. St andard of Re view W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, vie w ing the evidence in the light m ost favorable to the party oppo sing th e m otion . Skrtich
v. T hor nto n, 280 F . 3d 1 295, 129 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . S um m ar y j udgm en t i s ap pr opr ia te if

the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, answ er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, and adm iss ion s onf

ile , tog ethe r w iththe a ff

idavit s, if any , sho wthe re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any

m at er ia l f

ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to j udgm en t a s a m atte r of law . F ed . R. Ci v. P. 56( c) ; E be rh ar dt v . W at er s, 901 F . 2d 1 578, 158 0 (11th Cir. 1990).The leg al ana ly sis under the AD EA an d t h e FC R A is the same. Z aben v. A ir Prods. & 3 Chems. Inc., 129 F .3d 1453, 1455 n.2 (11th Cir. 1997). 8 III . D isc us sio n A. Age Dis cr imi na ti on un de r b ot h t he ADEA an d t he FCRA 3 Brillinger argues that he w as term inated because of his age. He states that other em ploy ees w ho also un deservinglyrequested call-out pay we re tre ated dif fe re ntl y . H e furthe r co nte nds that y oung er of fi ce rs w er e pa id m or e an d th at his sa la ry reduc ti on fol lo win g h is de m ot io n i s ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n due to ag e. The A DE A m akes it unlawful for an em ploy er “ to discharge any

indiv idual or oth er w ise dis cr im inate a ga ins t any ind ivi dua l w ithr es pe ct

to his c om

pe nsatio n, te rm s, co nd it io ns , or p riv il eg es of e m pl oym en t, b ecau se of s uc h i nd iv idua l’s ag e.” 29 U.S.C. § 6 23 (a)( 1) . Inana ly zi ng a

c la im und er the A D E A , thi s c ourt a

ppl ie s th e “ the bur de n- shi ft ing f

ram ew ork e sta

bli she d” by

the S upr em e Co urt i n M cD onne ll D ougl as Co rp . v. G re en , 411 U . S. 792 ( 1973 ). S ee Co fi el d v. G oldkis t, I nc . , 267 F. 3d 1 264, 126 7 n. 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( not ing that “ [a ] tho ugh the Mc D onne ll Douglas fram ew ork originallyapplied to Title VI I ca ses, it is now w idely acce pted th atth e fra m ewo rkap pl ie s t o c la im s o f di sc riminat io n u nd er t he ADEA as wel l.”) . U nde r the Mc D onne ll D ougl as f ram ew ork, the pla int if

f m ust f ir st e sta bli sh a9

pri m a fa ci e c as e of

dis cr im inatio n. Ch ap m anv. A I T ra nspo rt , 229 F . 3d 1 012, 10 24 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). To establish a prima facie ca se of a ge dis cr im inatio n, the pla int if f shou ld showthat: (1 ) he w as am em be r of the pr ote ct ed

gr oup of pe rs ons be tw ee n th e ages of 40 and 70; (2) he was subj ect to adverse e m ploym ent action; (3) a y oung er person filled the pos ition from which he w as discharged; and (4) he w as qualified to do th e job . Id. A prima facie ca se of dis cr im inator

y dis ch ar ge ba se d ona ge m ay also be established if the plaint iff shows that “ the m iscondu ct for which [he]
w as dis ch ar ge d w as ne ar ly ide nti ca l t o th at

e nga ge d inby

[ ane m plo y ee out sid e the pr ote ct ed

c la ss] w hom

[ the e m plo y er ] r et ai ne d. ” N ix v . W L CYRa dio /R ah al l Com m c’ ns, 738 F.2d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir. 1984). If the plaintiff e stablish es a prima facie case, the em ploy er m ust then o ffer le git im at e, non dis cr im inator y r ea sons f or the e m plo ym en t a ct ionto re but

a presum ption of discrim ination . Chapm an, 229 F. 3d at 102 4. “ If the plaintiff does not pr of fe r suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to cr eate age nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t r eg ar din g w he the r ea chof

the de fe ndant e m

plo y er ’ s art ic ulate d r ea sons is pr et ex tua l, the em ploy er is entitled to summ ary j udgm ent on the plain tiff’ s claim .” Id. at 1024 -2 5. Apla int if

f the n m ay

ove rc om e the e m

plo y er ’ s a sse rt ed

le git im at e reasons and avoid su m

m ary j udgm ent “ either directly by persuading th e court thatOffic er Mc Carthy had bee n with the police for only a fe w y ea rs an dhad submitted an 4 ov e rt ime sli p f

or a mis se d lu nc h. Of fi c e r Pila lis su

bmi tte d an ov e rt ime sli p f or a ha lf -h our b e c a

us e he missed lunch duringa jury trial; his serg eant noted that the trial had in fa ct taken a lunch bre ak and denied t h e request. Off icer Bolivar submitt ed inac curate time slips and was g iven a wr itten repr imand. At the time, he had t h re e y ear s with the police depa rtment. Fina lly , Offic er V ieira worke d thr o u g hlu

n c han d s u b mi tt e d a r e qu e s t f o r o v e rti me . H e r e c e iv e d

a w r itte nr e p r im and be c a us e he did no t re c e ive pr ior a uth or izatio n to mis s th e me a l no r d id h e atte mpt to r e sc he du le his lunch. He w as wa

rned that he would be subjec t to more sever e disci p l i n e i f other disc repa ncies occur red. 10 a dis cr im inator

y r ea son m or e lik el y

m oti va te d th e em

plo y er or ind ir ec tly

by showing th at the em

ploy er’ s proffer ed explanation is unworthy of cre dence.” T ay lor v. Runy on, 175 F . 3d 8 61, 867 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ( em pha sis and quot at ion s om itt ed ). S til l, the pla int if f “ m ust m ee t [ the pr of

fe re d le git im at e] r ea son he ad on an d r eb ut i t, and the e m

plo y ee c annot

suc ce ed sim ply by quarr el ing w iththe
w isd om of that r ea son. ” Ch ap m an , 229 F . 3d at 10 30. He re, Brillinger fa iled to establis h a pri m a fa ci e c as e be ca use he c annot showthat a

sim ilarl y sit ua te d e m plo y ee w as tr eate d di ff

er en tly . F ir st, the Ci ty term inated Odum

and Conforti for the sam e violation s. A lso, the office rs Br ill ing er ide nti fi ed

a s c om parator s w er e not

ide nti ca l t o B ri lli nge r an d thus d o not c onst itu te appr opr ia te c om parator s. Me loy

w as not the sam e rank, w as a m em ber of the containm ent team , and actually responded to th e call- out. O ffice rs McCar thy , P ilalis, Boliver, and Vieir a had few er y ears on the forc e, few er ins tanc es of

pr ior dis ci pli ne , and l es se r rank. T hus, non e of the se ind ivi dua ls 4
w er e ap pr opr ia te c om

parator s. F ina lly , the re is no e vid en ce that any se rg eant11

under the age of 40 with a lengthy disciplin ary

rec ord falsified pay

roll slips —after al read y be in g warne d abo ut su ch be ha vi or —an d was ret ai ne d. W ith respect to the pay

issue, under the term s of the City ’ s policies, an officer subject to dem otion fac es a min imu m of a5% sa lary

r ed uc tio n. N oth ing in the pol ic y dic ta te s th e m ax im

um de cr ea se . B ri lli nge r ha s f ai le d to of

fe r anythi ng to sh ow t he de crea se was m ot iv at edby age d is cri m in at io n. Moreover, even if w e w ere to conclud e that Brillinger established a pr ima fac ie case, summ ary

j udgm ent was proper

because Br illing er f

ailed to show that the Ci ty ’ s pr of

fe re d r ea sons f

or te rm inatio n w er e a pr et ex t f or dis cr im inatio n. T he Ci ty ’ s pr of

fe re d r ea sons w er e that i t be lie ve d th at Br ill ing er

kno w ing ly

and
w ro ngf ull y vio la te d th e Ci ty ’ s po lic ie s by f al sif y ing doc um en ts i n or de r to b e pa id fo r ov ert im e th athe di d n ot workan d t ha t h e h adbe en de rel ic t i n h is du ti es . Be ca use Br ill ing er

ha d ale ngthy

dis ci pli nary

r ec or d, his sup er ior s f

ound him to lack cre dibil ity

and did no t feel him

trustworthy . Both Sm ith and Ham pshire te sti fi ed that the y ha d lo st f

ai th i n B ri lli nge r’ s a

bil ity to do h is j ob and s upe rv ise ot he r em pl oyees a s a r es ul t o f hi s re pe at edvi ol at io ns an d d is ci pl in ary act io ns . N um er ous oth er

of fi ce rs te sti fi ed

that B ri lli nge r co uld

not have r ea sona

bly be lie ve d th at

his a ct ion s qu al if

ie d f or c al l- out pay and B ri lli nge r adm itt ed

in his de po si ti on th athe was n ot en ti tl edto cal l-o utpa y .The e lements of re taliation under the F CRA and the ADEA ar e t h e same. See Dra g o v. 5 J enne, 453 F .3d 1301, 1307 (11th Cir. 2006). Br illinger

actua lly contends that his re taliation claims are based upon two diff ere nt 6 protec ted ac tiviti es: filing a lawsuit and complaining of discrimination. Filing a lawsuit allegingan inv a sio n o f p ri va c y

is n ot p ro te c te d und e r t

he ret ali ation s tatut e be c a us e it i s n ot o pp os iti on

to d i s cr i m i n at ion based on a g e. See 29 U .S.C. § 623(d). Thus, Br illinger ’s only alleg ed prote cted activity is his complaints of discrimination. 12 In response to the City ’ s proffer ed rea son for term ination , B rillinger can poi nt u s to no e vid en ce sho w ing pr et ex t and tha t the tr ue r ea son fo r his term ination wa s his age. H e fa ils to m eet his burden and, theref ore, we aff

irm sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe se c la im s. B. Reta li at io n Cla ims un de r the ADEA an d t he FCRA 5 Br ill ing er ne xt c ont en ds tha t sum

m ar y j udgm en t w as im

pr ope r on h is re ta liatio n c la im s. R et al ia tio n c la im s are gov er ne d by the sam e bur de n- shi ft ing fr am ew ork de sc ri be d a

bove . S ee Ch ap m an , 229 F . 3d at 10 24. T o e sta bli sh a prima facie cas e o f ret al ia ti on , Bri ll in ge r m us t s ho w th at(1) he en ga ge d i n ADEA pr ote ct ed e xpr es sio n; ( 2) he suf

fe re d an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ion ; and ( 3) the adve rs e ac tio n w as c au sa lly r el at ed to the pr ote ct ed

e xpr es sio n. B as s v. Bd . of CountyCom

m ’ rs, 256 F.3d 109 5, 1117 (11th Cir. 2001 ). Brillinger claim s that his com plainin g of discrim ination is the protected ac tiv ity . H e state s th at

a s ar es ult

of the se c om

pla int s, he w as te rm inate d and, 6Br illinger also alleg es t hat he wa s denied pe nsion benefits but he (1) is unable to show that 7 he exhausted his administrative re medies on this matter by including this in his EEOC claim and (2) fails to prov i d e any

evidenc e of the denial of pe nsion benefits. Ther efor e, this argument is not proper ly befor e thi s court. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(d) (plaintiff must ex haust administrative re medies by filing his cla im with the EEOC). 13 w he n he w as r ei nst at ed , he suf fe re d asub stanti al de cr ea se in pay . A ga in, tho ugh, 7
even assum ing th at Brillinger has established a pri m a fa ci e c as e, he ha s f ai le d to sh ow p ret ex t. T he Ci ty put f orth p ro ff er ed r ea sons f or the te rm inatio n and d ec re as e in pay —tha t B ri lli nge r fa lsi fi ed doc um en ts i n or de r to r ec ei ve pay f or w ork he did not do, w as de re lic t i n hi s du tie s, and w as untru stw orthy , and the Ci ty ’ s po lic y f or dem oting police officer s requires a m inim um of a 5% pay

decre ase. Brillinger has fa ile d to m ee t hi s burd ento showthat the pr of fe re d r ea sons are pr et ex t and tha t the true rea son for the term ination and decrea se in pay is because Brillinger co m pla ine d of

dis cr im inatio n. W e, the re fo re , a ff irm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ntr

y of sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe r et al ia tio n c la im s. C. E qual Prot ec tio n Br ill ing er arg ue s th at

sum m ar y j udgm en t w as a lso im

pr ope r on h is “ cl as s of one ” E qua l P ro te ct ionc la im . W e ar e boun d by the r ec en t S upr em e Co urt r uli ng i n w hic h th e Co urt c onc lud ed that “ cl as s of

one ” E qua l P ro te ct ionc la im s br ough t by publ ic em ploy ees ar e not cognizable. E ngqu ist v. Or egon Dep’ t of Agr ic., ---Br illinger also filed a Motion for L eave to File Rec ord Excerpts to Appellant’s Reply Br ief. 8 We have r eviewe d the re cord a nd we de ny

that motion. 14 S. Ct.
--- -, 2008 W L 2329768 (N o. 07-474) (Jun. 9, 2008). Ac cordingly , w e af firm s u mmary j u d g me n to n th i s c l a i m. D
. F irs t A m en dm en t Brillinger further c ontend s that the dist rict court er red in granting su m

m ary j udgm ent on his First A m endm ent claim under § 198 3 and the FCRA . Brillinger al le ge d th at

he w as tr eate d a dve rs el y be ca use of his inv as ion -o f- pr iva cy

law sui t against the City . Specifica lly , he asserted that, after he com plained, he w as te rm in at edbe cau se th e Ci ty w an te d t o c hi ll hi s s pe ech an d re ta li at e ag ai ns t h im . T o su cc ee d ona

F ir st A m en dm en t r et al ia tio n c la im , the pla int if f m ust show that the adverse em ploym ent action was c ausally relate d to the protected spe ec h. S ee G ar ce tti v. Ce ba llo s, 547 U . S. 410 , 418 ( 2006 ). A ssum ing w ith out de ci din g th at

Br ill ing er ’ s law sui t w as pr ote ct ed spe ec h, he ha s f

ai le d to sho w any e vid en ce that hi s te rm inatio n w as c au sa lly r el at ed to the law sui t. I nde ed , the lawsuit wa s filed in 200 2 and Brillinger was not term inated unti l 2005 . W e, the re fo re , a ff

irm sum m ar y j udgm en t a s to the F ir st A m en dm en t c la im s. Ac cordingly , w e A FFI RM. 8