## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2661 D AV ID H UT CHI NS, et a l., P la intif fs-A pp ellees, v. D AV ID A . C LA R KE, J R ., et al., D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:07- cv-00526-WEC

—WilliamE. C alla han, Jr. , Magistrate Judg e.
A RGUED J UNE 10, 2011

— D ECIDED O CT OB ER 24, 2011

B efore B AUER, F L A U M an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, C ircu it Judge. M i l w aukee County Deputy S h e r i ffD a v i d H u t c h i n s b r o u g h ta n a c t i o n f o r c o mm en ts m ad e b y M ilw au ke e C ou n t y Sh er iff D av id Clar ke re gar ding H utch in s’ di sci plinaryhi sto rywith th e sh er i ff’ s depa r tment. T he di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d the pla i nti ff s’ m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, fi nd i n g that S he r i ff Cl a r k e v i o l a t e d ( 1 ) W i s c o ns i n’ s Op e n Recor ds Law , W i s. S tat
. §§ 1 9.3 1- 19. 39; ( 2) W i sco nsi n’s Ri ght o f Pri vacyst atute , W i s. S tat
. § 995. 50; and ( 3) 42 U
. S. C. § 1 9832 N o. 10

- 2661 f o r r e t a l i a t i o n a nd de pr i v i ng Hut c hins o fh i s F i r s tAmen dm en t ri gh t to free sp eech

. W e reverse th e d istri ct c o u rt on a l l thr ee counts.

I . B AC KGR OUND T h is case ar i ses fro m a pai r of on- ai r phone cal l s to a popu l arM i l w aukee , W i sco nsi n r adio sho w , o ne fro m Hut c hins a nd the o the r fr o m S he r i ffCl a r k e . OnMay17, 2007, a disc ussi on r ega rdi ng S heri ffCl ar ke’ s a voi dance o fc er ta i n Af r i ca n- Am er i ca n g r o ups t o o kpl ac e o n the “Eri c Von S how , ” a lis tener- i nter acti ve ra dio sho w whi c h i s b r o a dc a s t e d o n W M CS AM 1 2 9 0
. Ontha tda y, H ut c hins , a r o ut i ne l i s t e ne r a nd c a l l e r, c a l l e d the sho w in resp ons e to th e c riti cal com m en ts regard ing Sheriff C l a r k e ’ s i n v o l v e me n tw i th a n A fr i c a n- Am e r i c a n c o mm unity o rg ani zation d edi cate d to re du ci ng cr i m e. H ut ch i ns was l i k ewi se c r i ti ca l o fSh er i ffCl ar k e, s ta ting w or d s t o th e e ffec t t h at Sh er iff C lar ke w as n ota go od fit f orthe M i l w au ke e County Sher i ffposi ti on. In re sponse to H u tc h in s’ c om m en ts , Sh er iff C lar ke ca lled th e E ric V on Sh ow and retorted by call ing H ut ch ins a “slack er” w ho d id n ot d eserve to b e a n em p loyee ofthe sh eriff’ s departm ent. S heri ff C l ar ke express ed the vi ew that H u tc h in s w as bit te r a n d c a rrie d a gr u d ge ag ain st h im b ec au se of a d isc ip lin ar y a c tio n ta ke n in 2 00 4 b y h im aga i ns t H u tchi ns. S heri ffCl ar ke i denti fi ed thi s di sci plinaryact i on o n -air as a ste p take n as a r esul t o f H u tchins’ “s exual har ass m ent” ofano therem plo yee . In actual i ty, the disc i plinaryact i on was f orH utchi ns’ vi ol ati on o fa departm ent rule thatpro hibi ted o ffensi veN o. 10

- 2661 3 conduct orl anguage to w ard t h e pu bl i c o r toward co unty offi cer s o r em plo yee s. H utchi ns and the M ilw au kee Deputy She ri ff’ s Associ ati on filed a co m pla i nt al l eging tha t the defendants vi ol ate d H utchi ns’ Fi rs t Am endm ent r i ght t o free s peech and both pl ai nti ffs’ F i rs t Am endm ent r i ght o ffre e a ssoc i ati on byr eta l i ating ag ai nst the pl ai nti ff s, i n vi ol ati on o f4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 98 3. The pl aintiff s al so a l l eg ed th atthe d efe n d an ts vio lat ed th e p lain tiffs ’ righ ts u n d er W isc on sin sta tutory l aw , speci fi cal l y under ( 1) W i sco nsi n’s Law En f or cem ent Offi cer s’ Bi l l o fRi ghts, W is. Stat. §§ 16 4. 015, 164. 03; ( 2) W i sco nsi n’s M unici pal Em plo ym ent Rel ati ons A ct, W i s. S tat
. § 111. 70( 2) , ( 3) W i sco n sin’s Open Re co r ds Law, W i s. S ta t. § § 19
. 31

- 19
. 39 ; a nd ( 4) W i sco nsin’s Righ t of Privac y statu te, W is. Stat. § 995.50(2)( c). Both part i es filed m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent o n al l c o unt s. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j ud gm ent i n f avo r ofthe pla i nti ff s on (1) thei r cl ai m under § 1983 for She riff C la r k e ’s disclosu re of H ut ch ins’ discip lina ry h i s t o r y, ( 2 ) th e i r c l a i m u n d e r Wi s c o n s i n ’ s O p e n R e c o r ds La w , and ( 3) thei r cl ai m under W i sco nsi n’s Ri ght o f Pri vacy sta tute. The cour t gr anted the d efendants’ m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the re m ai ni ng cl ai m s. The de fen dan ts fi l ed a m o ti o n f o r r ec o ns i der at i o n a nd th e di st r i ctc o ur t i ss ue d a n o r derde ny i ngthe mot i o n. The defendant s ha ve a ppea l ed th e cl ai m s unde r W i sc o nsi n’s Op en Recor ds Law , W i sco nsi n’s Right of P rivacy statu te, an d § 1983 for r etaliati o n i n Sh eriff C larke’s disc l osur e o fH utchi ns’ di sci plinaryhi sto ry .4 N o. 10

- 2661 I I . DI S C US S I ON A . W i sconsi n’s O pen Recor ds Law The dis tr i ct c ourt g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofH utchi ns, fi nd i ng tha t Sh er i ffCl ar ke vi ol ate d W i sconsin’s Op en Recor ds Law by f ai l i ng to provi de n ot ice an d failin g t o c on d u c t a b a l a n c in g t es t b efo re ora lly disc ussi ng the co ntents ofH utchi ns’ di sci plinaryfi l e. The appell ants ar gue that the di str i ct c ourter re d w hen i t a p p lied W i sco nsi n’s Open Recor ds Law to She riff C larke’s or al r eferenc e to H ut ch ins’ disci p lin ary r ec o r d. W e agree and c andi spo se o fthi s i ss ue wi th o ut del vingmuch int o the di st r i ctcou rt’s a na l y si s o r the parti es’ ar gum ents; W i sco nsi n’s Open Recor ds Law si m plydo e s n o ta pp l y t o the f a c t s o fthi s p a r t i c ul ar case , and the pla i nti ff s hav e no cl ai m under the st atute
. W i sco nsi n’s Open R ec or ds Law was enact ed to pro vi de the pu bl i c w i th “the gr eat est possibl e in f or m ati on re gar ding the a ff ai rs o fthe gov er nm ent a nd the offi ci al acts o ftho se o ffi ce r s an d e m pl o y ee s who r epr es en t the m. ” Wi s . S t a t
. § 19
. 3 1
. The st a t ut e p r o v i de s tha t“ e xc e pt as o th er wi se pr o vi ded byl aw, a ny r eque st erha s a r i g ht to i nspect a ny r eco rd.” W i s. S tat
. § 19. 35( 1) ( a)
. W i th r e g a r d t o a r e c o r d c o n t a i n i n gi n f o r ma t i o n a b o u ta n e mplo yee ’ s di sci plinaryhi sto ry, as i n thi s ca se, the statu te provi des thati fthe author i ty deci des to per m i t a c c ess to the r equeste d rec or d, the a uthor i ty shal l se rv e w ritten noti ce o n the em ploye e. W i s S tat
. § 19. 356( 2) ( a)
. W hen deci di ngwh e the r t o o pe n a r e c o r d, the a utho r i t y must c on d u c t a ba lan c in g t es t t o w eig h th e p u b lic in te re st in pr o te ct i ngi ts c i ti ze ns ’ r epu ta ti o ns a nd pri va cya g ains t th eN o. 10

- 2661 5

T he W iscon sin O p en R eco rd s L aw d efines a reco rd as: 1 [ A] ny m at er i al onwhi c h wri t t en, dra wn, pr i nte d, s poke n, vi s ual or e l ec t ro m agn et i c i nf or m at i on i s r ec or ded or p reserv ed , reg ard less of ph y sical for m o r cha rac teristics, whic h has b een c re at ed o r i s be i ng k eptby a n a uthor i t y. “R ecord” inc ludes, but is not li m it ed t o, hand w ri tt en, typed orpr i nt e d p a ge s , m a ps , c ha r t s , ph ot og r a ph s , fi l m s , r e c or ding s, tap es ( inclu d ing com p u ter tap es), com p u ter p rinto u ts an d op tical d isks. “R eco rd ” d oe s no t inclu d e d rafts, no tes, preli m inary c om pu tat ions and like m ater ial s prepared f or the ori ginator’ s personal use or prepared b y the or igi nator in t h e n am e of a p erso n for w ho m the o rig ina tor is w or k ing ; m ater ials w hich a re p u rely th e p erso na l pr op erty of t h e cu st od ian and have no relat ion t o his or heroffic e; m at er i al s t o whic h a c c es s i s l i m i t ed by c opyr i ght, pat en tor (co n tin u ed ...) str ong pu bl i c i nter esti n m ain taini ng o pen re cor ds. Wozni ck iv. Er i cks on , 549 N
. W
. 2d 699, 70 3 ( W i s. 19 96)
. Once the e m plo yee r ecei ves noti ce, t h e em plo yee then has th e o p ti o n o fs ee k i nga c o ur t o r dert o r es tr ain the author i ty fro m perm i tting acces s to the re cor d. W is. St at. § 19.356(4). H er e, the f acts i n the re cor d show thatSh er iff Cl ar ke cal l ed i nto a r adio sho w and, sponta ne ou sly o r not, di scus s e d d e t a i l s r e g a r di ngHut c hins ’ di s c i pl i na r y h i s t o r y. N ot h i ng fro m thi s s et off acts l eads us to the c oncl usi on tha tWi s c o ns i n’s O pe n Re c o r ds La w s ho ul d b e i nv o k e d. T he re w as no requ est to insp ect H ut ch in s’ disciplinary re cor d, no p er m i ssi on g ra nted, and no b al anci ng te st u n d er ta ke n . P er h ap s t h e p lain tiffs th em se lve s s aid it 16 N o. 10

- 2661

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 bequest; and pu blis hed m ater ial s in the posse ss ion o f an au tho r i t y oth er th an a p u b lic libra ry w hich are a v ailab le for sale, or w hich are a v ai l a b le for insp ectio n a t a p u b lic l ibra ry . W is. St at
. § 19
. 32 ( 2)
. Bec aus e the Open Re c or ds Law i s no t a p p lic a b le , w e sa v e t h e d et er m in a tio n o f w h et h er Sh er iff Clarke’ s oral st atem ent const ituted a “rec ord,” as thatte rm i s us ed i n the Open Re c or ds Law, for an othe r day. b e s ti n th e i r o wnmo t i o n f o r s u mma r y j u d g me n t : “ C o mpound i ng the pro bl em i s the u nd i sputed f act that no bo dy so ug ht a cc es s to Hutc hi ns ’ pe r so nne l fi l e i n the fi r stpl ac e. As the r e was no ‘ r eque st, ’ the r e was no th i ng to ‘bal ance, ’ and the re l eas e o fsuch info rm ati on m ust be s een forwh at i t was

— an at te m pt to smea r H ut chi ns infron t o f t h e a u d ien c e o f th e E ric V on Sh ow . . . .” W h ile th e pl aint i ff s ha ve s i nc e c ha nge d the i r tune , we fi nd th is in itia l ar gu m en t m u c h m or e pe rs u as ive th an th eir curr ent o ne. W h ile W isc on sin co u rt s h av e n otye t c on sid er ed th is i ssue, w e bel i eve our opini on is consi ste nt w i th the tr aj ectory o fW i sc on si n case l aw . Pri orto the deci si on in Wozni ck i v. Er i cks on , the Op en R eco rds Law onl y a uthor i z e d a r e q u e s t e r t o b r i n g a n a c t i o n f o r m a n d a m u s c o mpel l i ng a custodia n to r el eas e ar eco rd under W i s. S tat
. § 1 9.3 7. Wozn icki changed th i s, hol ding that an em plo yee who wi sh es t o k ee p the a utho r i tyfr o m di sc l o singthe re quested in form ati on m ay al so bring an acti on under the s tatute. The Open Recor ds Law wa s then am endedN o. 10

- 2661 7 to refl ect th e em p loyee’s r igh t t o su e un d er thes e circ um sta nces. H utchi ns would have us ta ke thi s a st ep furtherand cr eate a cause o fact i on wh en the pro cedures i n the Ope n Re co r ds Law wer e no t f o l l o wed, thus tu r ni ngthe s ta tu te i nt o s o m e k i nd o fe nf o r ce ab l e due proce ss r i ght. W e m ust r ej ect H utchi ns’ i nter preta ti on o f th e O p enRe co r ds Law b ec au se i t va st l y e xpa nds the causes o fact i ons und erthe sta tute. Al tho ugh W i s c o ns i n’ s O pen Re c o r ds La w i s n o ta ppl i cabl e he r e, we no te tha t H ut ch i ns cou ld ha ve ( an d in som e cases did ) brou gh t his com p lai n t u n d er a num berof m or e a pp l i cabl e theor i es, i ncl ud i ng but not l i m i t e d t o d e f a ma t i o n, r i g h t o f p r i v a c y, o r r e t a l i a t i o n, b ut W isconsi n’s Open Recor ds Law has no a pp l i cati on her e. W hi l e we fi nd S heri ffCl ar ke’ s o n-air com m ents re gar ding H utchi ns’ di sci plinaryhi st or y insensi ti ve, not to ment i o n ina cc ur at e, we ca nno t sa y tha t hi s ac ti o ns w ere inv i o l at i o n o fW i sc o ns i n’ s OpenRe co r ds Act, a nd w e r eve rs e the deci si on o fthe dist ri ct c ourto n thi s i ssue.

B. W iscon sin ’s R ight of P ri vacy Statu te The pla i nti ff s a rgue thatthe defe nd ants i nvaded H ut ch ins’ ri gh t of p rivacy in viol ation o f W iscons in’s Ri g htof P r i va cys ta tu te , W i s. S ta t. § 9 95
. 50 , a nd the di st r i ctc o ur t f o und in f av o r o f th e pl aint i ff s. The r el ev an t sect i on o fthe act defines “ i nvasi on o fpri vacy ” a s, [ p]ubl i ci ty gi ven t o a m att erco ncer ni n g th e pri vate l i fe o fano ther, o fa ki nd hi ghl y o ffensi ve to a r easonab l e per son, i fthe defe nd ant has act ed ei th er8 N o. 10

- 2661

W hil e i t is true thatW is consi n courts have held thatthe re 2 i s n ota bl a nk e te x e m pt i onfr om pub l i c di s c l os ur e f orr e c or ds ofc l os ed i nve s t i gat i ons ag ai ns ta publ i c e m pl oye e as the a p p el la n ts a rg u e, Wisco n si n N ewspre ss v. Sch. of Shebo ygan , 546 N .W .2 d 1 43 , 14 8 (W is. 199 6), the co m m on -law b ala nc ing test s t i l l a ppl i e s . J us tbe c a us e a disc ip l i na r y r e c or d m ay b e d isc l os e d do e s n otm e a n i ts ho ul d b e di s c l os e d. unreas onabl y o r re ckl ess l y a s t o w hetherther e was a l e g i t i mat e pu b l i c i nt e r e s t i n the mat t e r i nv o l v e d, or w i th a c tu al know l edge that no ne exi ste d. I t i s no t an i nvasi on o fpri vacyto co m m unica te any info rm at i o n a v a i l ab l e t o the pu b l i c a s a mat t e r o fp ub l i c r e c o r d. W is. Stat. § 995.50(2)( c). There is m os t cert ai nl y a questi on o fm ate ri alf act as to the fi rs t fou r f acto rs thatcr eat e the i nvasi on o fpri vacy cl ai m (w hi ch, we note, appear to w ei gh hea vi l y in f avo r of t h e p lain tiffs ). H ow ev er , w e d o n ot rea c h th is a n aly sis because th e inf or m ati on co m m unica ted i s a vai l abl e t o the p ub l i c a s a ma t t e r o fp ub l i c r e c o r d. The ap p ellants’ ar gum ent with re gar d to the r i ght o f p riv ac y c laim is t h a t H u tc h in s’ d isc ip lin ar y re c or d is co ns ider ed a publ i c r ec o r d b ec au se the r ec o r d i s th e p r o d u c to fa c l o s e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n, a n d r e c o r ds o fe mp loyee m iscond uc t m ay be released un d er W iscon s in ’s OpenRe co r ds Law o nc e th e i nv es ti gat i o n h as c o ncl ude d. The di st r i ctc o urt ad d r es se d thi s ar g um en t an d

2 disa gr eed, st ating tha t Hu tchi ns’ di sci plinary fi l e was no t a pu b l i c r e c o r d , b a s i n gth i s c o n c l u s i o n o n i t s fi n d i ng tha tS he r i ffCl a r k e vi o l a t e d Wi s c o ns i n’ s Op e n Re c o r dsN o. 10

- 2661 9 Law byf ai l i ng to p ro vid e no ti ce a nd co nd uct a bal anci ng te st. T he district cou rt enta ng led its ana lysi s of W iscons in’s O p en Rec ord s L aw w ith its analysis un d er W iscons in’s Right o fPri vacyst atute and i ncor re ctly r el i ed on i ts proce du ra l fi nd i ng under th e Op en Reco rds Law w hen d et e r m in in g w h et h er th e d isc ip lin ar y re c or d sh ou ld re m ain clo se d u n d er th e R igh t o f P riv ac y s ta tu t e . W h ile the two s t a t ut e s a r e r e l a t e d l a ws , the y a r e o nly r e l ate d i n that a finding und erthe Op en Reco rds Law that a re cor d shoul d be m ade publi c would necess ar i l y m ean that “the i nfo rm ati on was ava i l abl e t o th e pu bl i c as a m att ero fpubli c r eco rd. ” Thi s i s t rue beca u se bo th st a t ut e s a pp l y the s a me c o mm o n- l a w b a l a nc i ngt est w h en d et er m in in g w h et h er a re c or d is “p u b lic. ” In th is case , however, the dist ri ct c ourt n ever m ade a fi nd i ng as to w hetherthe re cor d coul d be m ade publi c un d er the Open Recor ds Law ( an d t h u s und erthe Right o f Pri vacyst atute )
. Ins tea d, i t found onl y that the pro

cedures del i neate d i n the O p en R eco rds Law w er e no t f ol l owed . T h ese pro cedures, however, have no i m pact o n the quest i on o fwh ethera re c or d is “publi c” o r not; they ar e m er el y pr oce du ra l, notsubst anti ve. A l though the d ist ri ct c ourt ’ s o pini on a nd the parti es’ b rie fs i denti fi ed the bal anci ng te st as bei ng per ti nent t o a publ i c r eco rds fi nd i ng under the R igh t ofPri vacy st atut e, a l l f ai l ed to a dequa te ly appl y the b al an cing tes t t o the f acts i n thi s ca se. Becau se the a pp l i cati on o f th e b a l a n c i n g t e s t i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w, we a p p l y o ur an aly sis ind ep en d en tly

. M i l wauke e Jour nal Se nt i ne l v.10 N o. 10

- 2661

W i s c ons i n c our t s ha ve notdefi ne d “publ i c r ec or d” i n the 3 Privac y Ac tc on t e x t
. Bu t, W i s c on s i n c omm onl a w has al ways r ec ogni zed a c onc er n f or the pr i vac y a nd r eput at i on of c i t i ze ns an d the re f or e us ed a b ala nc i ng t es tbe f or e m aki ng cer tai n inf orm ati on pu blic

. In a d ec a des- old cas e, the court no ted tha t: [ T]he r ight to i nspectpub li c docum ents and records at c omm o n l a w i s n o to b s o l u t e [ s i c ]
. T h e r e ma y b e s i t uat i ons wher e the ha rm done t o the publ i c i nt er es t m ay out wei gh the r i ghtofa m em ber ofthe publ i c t o have ac c es s t o pa rt i c ul a r publi c r e c or ds o r do c umen t s . Th us , the o ne m us tbe b ala nc ed ag ain st the oth er in d eterm inin g w he the r to per m i ti ns pec t i on. St a t e e x re l
. Youma ns v. Ow e ns , 1 3 7N .W .2d 47 0 , 47 4 (W is. 1 9 6 6 ). W i sc on sin co u rts ha v e rep eate d this fu nd am en tal p rinc ip le in n ea r l y ev er y p u b lic re co rd s ca se . See, e . g. , Wozni cki, 5 4 9 N .W .2d a t 7 0 1 ; Wi scon si n New spress , 546 N
. W
. 2d at 147; N ew spap ers , Inc. v. B reier, 27 9 N .W .2d 17 9 , 18 7(W is. 1 9 7 9 ). Wi s co ns i n Dep’ tof

Adm i n. , 76 8 N
. W
. 2d 700, 70 8 (W i s. 20 09) ( ci ti ng Wisco nsin New spress , 546 N
. W
. 2d at 149). 3 I n ord er to det erm ine w h eth er H ut ch ins’ discip lina ry hi s t o r y i s “ i nfo r mat i o n a v a i l ab l e t o the pu b l i c as a m at te r ofpubli c r eco rd, ” we w ei gh the publi c i nter est i n pr o t e c t i ngi t s c i t i z e ns ’ r e pu t a t i o ns a nd p r i v a c y a g a i nst the s tr ong pu bl i c i nter esti n m ain ta ini ng o pen re cor ds, consi deri ng the r el evantfact or s t o deter m i ne wh ether the s ur r o un di ng f a c t ua l c i r c ums t a nc e s c r e a t e a n “ e xc e pti onalcas e” not gov er ned by the st ro ng pre sum pti on o f openness. He m pe l v. Ci ty of Bar ab oo , 6 99 N
. W
. 2d 551, 56 7 ( W i s. 2 00 5)
. W he n a pp lyi ngthe c o m m o n- l aw b al an cing tes t, o ur co nsi derat i on i s no t o fpers on al e m bar ra ss-N o. 10

- 2661 11

m en t and da m age to rep u t a t ion, bu t w he th er disclosu re w ou ld affe c t an y pu b l i c int er es t. Zel l ne rv. Ce dar b urg S ch
. D is t. , 731 N .W .2d 24 0, 25 2 ( W i s . 200 7); Li nzmeye rv. Fo rcey, 646 N .W .2d 81 1, 82 0 (W is. 20 02 ) ( “ [ T ]h e p u b lic i nter esti n prot ecting i nd i vi du al s’ pri vacyand re pu tat i on ar i se s from th e publ i c effec ts o fthe f ai l ur e to ho no r the ind ivi d ua l’ s p rivacy interests , a n d not th e ind ivi d ua l’ s con cern abou t em barrass m en t.”)
. Aft erb al an cingthe two i nt er es ts i n thi s ca se, we fi nd that the publ i c i nter esti n dis cl osur e o fthi s info rm atio n is n o t o ut wei g he d b y the pub l i c i nt er es t i n mai nt aini ng i t as a c l o se d r ec o rd

. M an y o fthe f ac to r s th atf av o r no ndisc l osur e o fpol i ce o ffi cer s’ per sonnelfi l es ar e no t prese nt i n H utchi ns’ cas e. See Hem pel , 69 9 N
. W
. 2d at 568- 70 ( re cor ds perta i ni ng to i nter nal i nvest i gat i ons m ay be w i thhel d fr om the pu bl i c wh en the y a re the re sul t o f a co nfi denti ali nvest i gat i on a nd di scl osur e w oul d disco ur ag e o th erpo l i ce o ffi ce r s an d e m pl o y ee s wi th i n the po l i ce de par tmentfrom pr o vi di ngpo te nt i al l y da m ag i ng i nfo rm ati on about a co l l eague) ; Stateex re l. Journal / Senti nel, Inc. , A nne B othw el l v . A rreola , 55 8 N
. W
. 2d 670, 67 6- 77 ( W i s . Ct
. App. 1 9 9 6 ) ( the r e l e a s e o f di s c i pl i na r y f i l es m i ght ha m per th e p oli ce depar tm ent’ s abi l i ty to conduct an effective inves tigation agains t an ac cu sed officer); La w Of f i c e s o f Wi l l i a m A. Pa n g man & A s s o c i a t e s , S
. C. v. Z ellm er, 47 3 N
. W
. 2d 538, 54 5 ( W i s. Ct. A p p . 1 991) ( disc l osure o fper sonnelr eco rds would have a “c hi l l i ng effect” on l aw enf or cem ent b ecause o ffi cer s m i ght m ake few er ar re sts i ftheyknew thei r person nelfi l es m i ght b e m a d e p u b lic a s a res u lt of t h e a rre st ); Law O f f i ces of Willia m A . P a ng m a n & A s s o c i a tes v. Stig ler, 46 8 N
. W
. 2d12 N o. 10

- 2661

Gene ra l l y, thi s pr obl em c an be addre s s ed by s i m pl y r eda c t i ng 4 the id en tities of a victim or a ny ind iv id u als inte r v iew ed in the i nve s t i gat i on. W e no te tha t W iscon sin cases “ ind icate a legislativ e r e c o g ni- 5 tion of a p u b lic po licy in terest in g en era lly d e ny ing access to the pe r s on ne l fi l e s o fpo l i c e o ffi c e r s , ” Vi l l age of B u tl er, 472 N .W .2d a t 5 8 4 , b u t there ha v e b een cases w he re p olice o ffic e r s ’ a n d p o l i c e d e p a r t me n te mp l o y e e s ’ d i s c i p l i n a r y fi l e s h a ve b ee n d isc lo se d

. See, e . g. , Loca l 2489 A FSC M E, A FL-CIO v. R ock C ou n ty, 68 9 N .W .2d 64 4 (W is. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); A rr eo la , 5 5 8 N .W .2d 67 0 ; Isthm us Publ i shi ng C o. Inc. v. C ity of M adiso n P o lic e D ep ’t, 19 9 5 W L 81 9 1 7 6 (W is. C ir . C t. 1 9 9 5 ). 78 4, 78 9 (W is. C t. A p p . 199 1) (re lea se of re c or d s w ou ld endangero ffi cerenga ged i n und er cove r w or k) ; Vil l ageof B utler v . Co hen , 47 2 N .W
. 2d 579, 58 4 ( W i s. A pp . 19 91) ((1) th e p os sib ility of cr os s-e x am in at ion of m at te rs in perso nnel r eco rds m i ght i m pai r pol i ce o ffi cer ’ s ability o r w i l l i ngness to te sti fy in cour t, and ( 2) few erqual i fi ed candid ate s would ac cept e m plo ym ent in a pos i ti on w he re they c o u ld exp ect th eir p erson ne l fi les are regu larl y ope n for pu bli c review ). Ne v e r the l e s s , s o me f act o r s f a v o r i ngn o n- di s c l o s ur e do ap p ly. For exam p le, t h e release of H ut ch ins’ discip lina ry fi l e co uld j eopar dize the perso nal pri vacy of the e m plo yee w ho m ade the com pla i nt abo ut hi s o ffensi ve cond u c t. SeeStateex re l. Le dford v. Tu rc otte, 53 6 N
. W .2d 1 30, 13 2 ( W i s. Ct
. App. 1 99 5)
. A nd the r e i s a va l i d c o nc ern abo ut 4 the i m pact o fdi scl osing per sonnelfi l es o n i ntra
- departm en t m or ale

. Z ellm er, 47 3 N
. W
. 2d at 543. 5N o. 10

- 2661 13

Seeal so Isthm us Publ i shi ng C o. , 1995 W L 8 1 9176, at *12 6 ( “Cl ea rl y pol i c e per s onn elha ve a pr i vac y in ter es ti n ke epi ng rep or ts of m iscon d u ct se cret. B u t the in terest of society in sc r u t iniz ing the u ses to w hich p olice p erso nn el p u t their power s wei ghs m or e he avi l y. Thi s has bee n the ho ld i ng ofm any pr evi ous c as es i nc l udi ng Y ou m an s a nd L edf ord .”). The pub l i c po l i ci es f av o r i ngdi sc l o su r e i nc l ude ( 1) the i ntent of W i sco nsi n’s Open Recor ds Law st ate s that “[ t] he de ni alo fpub l i c ac cess ge ne r al l y i s co nt r ar y t o the pu bl i c i nter est, and onl y in an e xcepti onalcas e m ay ac c e s s b e de ni e d, ” W i s . S t a t
. § 1 9
. 3 1 ; ( 2 ) the pu bl i c has a parti cularl y s tr ong i nter esti n bei ng i nfo rm ed abo ut i ts publ i c o ffi ci al s, e spe ci al l y i n the c as e o fl aw e nf o r ce m en t offic er s, Loc al 24 89 , 689 N .W .2d at65 4; an d (3) th e p u b lic has e ntrust ed i ts pol i ce o ffi cer s t o prot ect t h e com m unity fro m any w ro ngdoi ngs, and the m i sco nd uct for w hi ch H utchi ns’ w as disc i plined “oc curr ed i n the locat i on w he re the p ub li c ha s ent rus ted [ th e em p loye e s ] to w ork an d dur i ngthe perf o r m an ce o f[ th ei r ] pub l i c dut i es , a nd th er ef o r e sh ou ld be m or e s u bj ec t t o p u b lic s c ru tin y,” Lin z m eyer, 64 6 N
. W
. 2d at 819. 6 I n additio n to thes e f acto rs , wh i ch have been i denti fi ed i n W isconsi n case s, ther e a re addit i onalr el evantf acts f avo ring di scl osur e in thi s ca se. W hetherthe county sh er iff is p er for m in g h is jo b i n a sa tis fac to ry m an n er is parti c u lar ly re l evantto the pu bl i c i nter est
. Cri ti ci sm o f the s heri ff’ s per f or m ance, es peci al l y fr om an ind i vi du al w h o fre ely id en tifie d h im se lf on -air as a d e p u t y w ith in the s h er iff’ s depart m ent, gi ves the publ i c a hei ghtene d i n t e r e s ti n th e o r i g i n a n d mo t i v e s b e h i n d th a tc r i t i c i s m.14 N o. 10

- 2661 W e no te tha t i t i s pr o bl emat i c when a g o ve r nm en t em p loyer open ly d iscus ses h is em p loyees’ discip lina ry fi l es, and W i scon si n’s Ri ght o fPri vacyst atute r em ai ns a vi ab l e f o r m o fr el i ef

. Howev er, i n thi s ca se , afte r a ppl y i ng th e com m on-law balanc ing test to H ut ch ins’ discip linary file, w e co ncl ud e that there i s no ge nuine pu bl i c i nter est i n ke epi ng the r eco rd cl ose d to the publ i c. H utchi ns’ cl ai m under W i sco nsi n’s Ri ght o fPri vacyst atute f ai l s.
C. Un l a wf ul Re t a l i a t i o n Un de rt he F i r s tAme ndme nt The pla i nti ff s a rgue thatS heri ffCl ar ke re tal i ate d aga i nst Hu tchi ns f orhi s co m m en ts on the Eri c Von S how when he di sc l o se d Hutchi ns ’ di sc i pl i na r y hi st o r y o n the ra dio sho w , and that thi s r eta l i ati on was i n vi ol ati on of42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 as a depri vati on o fH utchi ns’ Fi rs t Am en dm en t r i g ht s. The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t al l the el ement s o fthe § 1 98 3 cl aim w ere sa ti sfi ed, us i ngthe pu rpor ted Open Recor ds Law vi ol ati on a s g ro und s for fi nd i ng an advers e a cti on. W e di sag re e. I t i s wel l e st ab l i sh ed th at a publ i c empl o y ee r et ains Fir st A m en d m en t rig h ts to free sp ee c h

. Pic ke r i ng v. B d. of E duc. , 3 9 1 U .S. 56 3, 56 8 (1 96 8); Vargas - Har r i s on v. Raci ne U nifi ed Sch. D is t. , 27 2 F
. 3d 964, 97 0 ( 7th C ir. 2001)
. A s a gener alr ule , the gov er nm ent c annot re tal i ate ag ai nst i ts em plo yee s forenga gi ng i n const i tuti onal l y pr ote c ted sp ee c h

. Vargas , 27 2 F
. 3d at 970. W hen a pla i nti ffbr i ngs a § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m f o r r e t a l i a t i on in vi o l a t i o n o fF i r s tAmen dm en t rig h ts in t h e e m p loy m en t c on te x t, ou r a n aly sis i nv o l ve s th r ee s te ps. F i r st, the c o ur t m us t det er m i ne w h et h er th e e m p loy ee ’s s p ee c h w as co n st itu tio n allyN o. 10

- 2661 15

I n P ow er, w e stated tha t: 7 N ot s ect ion 1983, but the federal st atute s, s u ch a s Titl e V II oft h e C iv il R igh ts A ct of 196 4, that forb id inv id iou s d iscrim ina tion in e m p loy m en t, lim it their p ro tection to victim s of“adv ers e em ploym ent act ion, ” w hich is j ud ic ial (co n tin u ed ...) prot ecte d und erthe Conni ck

- Pic ke r i ng te st
. Phel an v. Cook C o unty, 4 6 3 F
. 3 d 7 7 3 , 7 9 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. S e c o n d , t he pl aint i ffmustestabl i shtha t th e spe ec h was a s ubs ta nti al o r m o ti va ting f ac to r i n th e al l eg ed r et al i at ory act i o n. Id. F in al l y, i fthe pla i nti ffsa ti sfi es the fi rs t tw o ste ps, th e defen dan t ha s ano ppo r tunity to e st ab l i shtha t th e sam e a c tio n would have been tak en i n the abse nce of t h e e m p loy ee ’s p r o t e c te d sp ee c h

. Id. T h e d isp u te in th is case cen ters arou nd the sec ond f acto r. The appe l l an ts ar g ue tha t th e r et al i at o r y a ct i o n Hutc hi ns com pla i ns o f

— th e on-air d isclosure of his disciplinary history

— i s no t a n “adver se em ploym ent a cti on” to su p p ort his § 198 3 retali ation claim

. Th e d istri ct cou rt ad d ressed th is conce rn, recognizing th at She riff C larke’s com m en ts o n the Er i c Vo n S ho w di d no t r el at e to the condi ti ons of H utchi ns’ em plo ym ent, but ne verthel ess c om p let ed th e a n aly sis an d fo u n d t h e a c tio n to be su ffici entl y a dvers e. A § 1 9 8 3 reta l i a t i o n c l a i m do e s n o tr e qu i r e a n a dver se em plo ym ent a c t i o n wi thi n the sam e m eani ng as o ther an ti-d isc r i m in at ion st at u te s. Spiegl a v. H ull, 37 1 F
. 3d 928, 9 4 1 (7t h C ir. 20 04 ); P o w er v. Sum m ers , 22 6 F
. 3d 815, 82 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0)
. W e ha ve e xpl aine d tha t whatwas mean t 716 N o. 10

- 2661

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 s h o r th a n d ( th e t e r m d o e s n o tap p e a r i n th e s t a t u t e s th e mse lv es ) fo r t h e fa ct th a t th es e st a tu te s re q u ir e t h e p la in tiff t o p r o v e th a tth e e mp l o y e r ’ s ac t i o n o fw h i c h h e i s c o mp lain ing altered the term s or co nd ition s of his em ploym ent
. . . . A ny deprivati on of a le gal r ig h t u nd er color ofl aw thati s li kely t o deter the exe rci se o ffree s pee c h, wh e th e r b y a n e mpl o y e e o r a n y o n e e l s e , i s a c t i onable . . . [ i f ] the c i r c ums t a nc e s a r e s uc h a s t o m a ke s uc h a refu sal an effe c t i v e d eterr en t to the exercise o f a frag ile liberty. 226 F. 3d at 820. b y “ ad ve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n ” i n t h e § 19 83 co n te x t is that the acti on of w hi ch the em plo yee i s com pla i ni ng m ust b e s uffi c i e nt l y a dv e r s e t o de t e r the e xe r c i s e o fthe i nd i v i du al’s rig h t t o fre e s p ee c h

. P o w er, 226 F. 3d at 820- 21. There

fore, H ut ch ins ne ed only show tha t SheriffClarke’s di sc l o su r e was su ffi ci en tly adv er se to ch i l l hi s fr ee s pee ch

. W hi l e the di str i c t c ou rtused the purport ed Op en Recor ds Law vi ol ati on a s a b asis f orfi nd i ng an advers e em plo ym ent a ction and, co nsequentl y, a § 1 983 vi ol ati on, we cannot c on c l ud e that S heri ffCl ar ke vi ol ate d W i sc o ns i n’ s OpenRe co r ds Law, s o we di sagree wi ththe d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s r e a s o n i n g and u n d e r t a k e o u r o wn an alysis on th e m atter. The a ppel l an ts sa y tha t i n under ta k i ngthi s an aly si s, the c o u r tmu s tt ak e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n S h e r i ffC l a r k e ’ s o wn ri g ht t o fr e e s pe e c h, a nd the y a r e c o r r e c t
. W e ca nnot aff o r d o ne pa r tyhi s r i g htt o fr ee s pee chwhi l e di sc o unt i ng the r i ghts ofthe othe r party
. Otherci rcui ts and court s w i thi n ourci rcui t h av e add re sse d thi s s i tuati on

— w he reN o. 10

- 2661 17 the a l l ege d ret al i ato ry a c tion i s in i tse l fspeec h

—by l i m i ting a fi ndi ngo fa n a dve r se a ct i o n o nl y t o s i tu at i o ns w here the de fen dant’s speec h i s threa teni ng, har ass i ng, or int im id at in g. Se eO wen s v. Ragl and, 31 3 F
. Sup p . 2d 93 9, 94 9 (W .D . W is. 20 04 ); S u a r ez Co rp . In d u s . v . M cGr aw , 20 2 F .3d 67 6, 68 7 (4 th C ir. 20 00 ) (“[W ]h er e a p u b lic off ici al ’ s al l eg ed r et ali ati o n i s i n the na tu r e o fs pee ch, i n the abs ence o fthr ea t, c o er ci o n, o r i nt i m i dat i o n int i m at i ng that pu ni shm ent, sa n c tion, o r advers e r egul ato ryact i on wi l l i mm i ne nt l y f o l l o w, s uc h s pe e c h do e s n o ta dverse ly affect a ci ti zen’ s F i rs t Am endm ent r i ghts, ev en ifde fam atory.”). H er e, S he r i ffCl ar k e cal l ed th e Er i c Vo n S ho w and express ed hi s o pini on that Hu tchi ns’ cr i ti ci sm was a r es ul t o fHutc hi ns c ar r y i nga g r udg e ag ains t hi m for a past di sc ip lin ar y a cti on. S heri ffCl ar ke then went on t o disc uss that di sci plinaryact i on. S heri ffCl ar ke’ s co m m ents about H utchi ns’ di sci plinaryhi sto ryper tain to a pa st disc i plinaryact i on a n d i n no way i nti m ate any futu re disc i plinaryact i on a gains t H utchi ns with r ega rd to that cl ose d m att er . S h eri ffCl ar k’ s di scl osur e o fH utchi ns’ di sc i pl i na r y hi st o r y di d no t co ns ti tu te a thr ea t, c o er ci o n, orint im i dati on that punis hm ent, sa ncti on, o r advers e re gu lato ryact i on would i m m edi ate l y fol l ow, and so w er e no t a cti onabl e under § 1 983. Even i fso m e “h ar as sm ent a nd r i dicul e” m i ght b e r e t a l i a tor y s peech und er§ 1983 ( See B a rt v. Telfo rd, 677 F
. 2d 622, 62 5 ( 7th Ci r . 1 9 8 2 ) ) , S he r i ff Cl a r k ’ s s t a t e men t s di d no t r i s e t o th at lev el. The appell ees di re ct ou r att enti on t o the S i xth Cir cui t, w hi c h ha s h e a r d c a s e s i n whi c h a p ub l i c o ffi c i a l h as18 N o. 10

- 2661

re sp on d ed to an ind ivid u al’s cr itic ism by r e v e a l in g in tim at e a n d em b ar ra ss in g d et ails ab ou t t h at ind ivid u al. Se e, e . g. , Bloc h v
. Ri b ar, 156 F.3d 673 , 679-80 (6th C ir. 1998). Tha t ci r cui t r ec o g ni ze s th ati n s o m e ca se s wher e the al leg ed r eta l i ati on i s s peech, causing “e m bar ra ssm ent, humi l i at i o n, a nd e m o ti o na l di st r ess ” th ati s damag i ng to the pl ai nti ffm ay be a cti onabl e under § 1983, r ega rdl ess of a n y la c k of t h re at
. Id. at67 9- 80. Even i fwe w er e t o f ol l o w thi s think i ng, Hut c hins ’ c a s e di ffe r s g r e a t l y f ro m th o se c as es . In B loch , the pla i nti ff, a ra pe vi cti m , was i nter vi ew ed by a newspap erabo ut the l ack ofprogr ess i n the ra pe i nvest i gat i on a nd herst ate m ents w er e publi sh ed i n articles tha t w ere criti cal of th e cou nt y she riff’ s d ep artm en t. I n resp ons e to the articles, th e cou nt y she riff h eld a p u b lic pr es s con fer en c e, w h er e he rele as ed “h igh ly pe r s o na l a nd e xt r e mel y h umi l i a t i ngde t a i l s ” o fthe r a pe tha t e v e n the p l a i nt i ff’ s h usb a nd h a d n o tb e e n mad e aw ar e. S heri ffCl arke ’s c om m ents do not ri se to the l eve l o fthe c o m m en ts made i n B loch

. The re cor d dem onst ra tes thatS heri ffCl ar ke’ s r eta l i atory con d uc t in discu ssing H u tch ins’ discip lina ry hi sto rywas not acco m panie d by threa t, coerci on, o r in tim i d at ion int im at in g p u n ish m en t. A c c or d in gly , i t is not acti onabl e under § 1 983, and w e re ve rs e the deci si on ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
D . Pl eadi ngs The appell ants ar gue that the pl ai nti ff s di d n ot pl ead a v i o l a t i o n o fthe Wi s c o ns i n Op e n Re c o r ds La w, n or d i d th e y p l e a d a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f p r i v a c y c l a i m . WeN o. 10

- 2661 19 wi l l a d d r e s s e a c h i n tu r n a n d wi l l no tr e v e r s e u n l e s s we have f ound the di str i ct c ourthas abused i ts broad dis

c re tio n to co n s t ru c tiv ely am en d a c om p lain t. See Sun s t r e am Je tExpre ss, Inc . v. Int ’ l Ai rSe r vi ceCo. , Lt d. , 73 4 F.2d 125 8, 1272 ( 7th Cir. 1984). A s forthe W i sco nsi n Op en Reco rds Law, the a pp ell an ts a r g ue tha t th e pl aint i ff s ne ve r r ai sed th e i ss ue unt i l the y s ubmi tt ed a repl y b r i efi n s uppo r t o fthe pl ainti ff s’ m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. The di str i ct cour t r eco gni zed thatthe pla i nti ffs’ c om pla i nt di d not form all y state a ca us e of action un d er W iscons in’s Op en Reco rds Law, but ci ted to the w el l

- known r ule that a pl eadi ng ca n be const ructi vely a m en ded wh en bo th parti es express l y o r i m pli edl y c onse nt to the const ructi ve am en d m en t. See Fe d . R. C i v . P . 15(b ); M atte r of Pres cott, 80 5 F .2d 71 9, 7 2 5 ( 7 t h C ir. 19 86 ). Th e t es t fo r c on se n t is “w hetherthe opposi ng p arty had a f ai r opportunity t o defe nd and w hetherhe c oul d have pre sente d add itio nal ev i den ce ha d h e k no wn so o ne r the s ubs ta nc e o fthe am en d m en t.” M atte r of Pres cott, 8 05 F
. 2d at7 25 ( quo ting Har di n v . M anitowoc

- Fors yt heCorp. , 69 1 F
. 2d 449, 45 6 ( 1 0 th C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) )
. H e r e , w e a r e s a t i s fi e d th a tt he c o mpla i nt wa s co nstr ucti vel y a m ended to incl ud e a n Op en R ec or d s L aw vio lat ion, as t h e d efe n d an ts im p lied ly c on se n t ed to litiga tin g t h e is su e. T h e p lain tiffs p lain ly sta ted i n thei r ow n br i efi n opposi ti on t o defe nd ants’ m o ti o n f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t an d i n s uppo r t o fpl aintiffs’ m otion for su m m ar y jud gm en t tha t Sheriff Clar ke vi ol ate d W i s. S tat
. §§ 19
. 31- 19. 39. Fur ther m or e, the defendants were not unfam i l i arwith the subst ance ofthe Op en Reco rds Law; they used the sta tute as their20 N o. 10

- 2661

ow n d efe n se to th e p lain tiffs ’ righ t o f p riv ac y c laim in t h e i r ow n br ief a n d rep ly b rie f in s u p p or t o f th eir m ot ion for s u m m ar y jud gm en t. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd id no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n in fi nd ing th atthe pa r ti es c o nsente d to the c onst ructi ve am endm ent o fthe ple ading s t o i n c l u d e a c l a i m u n d e r Wi s c o n s i n ’ s O p e n R e c o r d s L a w. The a pp e l l a nt s a l s o a r g ue tha tthe p l a i nt i ff s di d n ot ple ad a s tatutor y r i ght o fp ri vacycl ai m under W i s. S tat
. § 9 95 .50 w ith sp ec ificit y b ec au se th e c lai m w as init ially c l a s s i fi e d a s “ l ib e r t y i n t e r e st
- r i g h to fp r i v a c y . ” Ag a i n, we ar e s at isfie d th at th e c om p lain t w as co n s tr u c tiv ely am ended to i ncl ud e a pri vacyvi ol ati on under the W i sconsin sta tute. The a d d a mn u m cl au se i n the pla i nti ff s’ compl a i nts t a t e s tha tthe de fe nd a nt s v i o l a t e d Hu t c hins’ pr i v a c y r i g h t s u n d e r Wi s . S t a t
. § 9 9 5
. 5 0
. Al s o , th e d e f en dants address t h e el em ents ofthe pla i nti ff s’ § 995. 50 cl ai m in thei r bri efin r esponse to the pla i nti ff s’ m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent. The distr i ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on in fi nd i ng tha t the partie s consente d to the c o ns t r uc t i v e a men dme nt o f the pl e a di ng s to i nc l ud e a cl ai m f ora ri ght o fpri vacyvi ol ati on under W i s. St at. § 995. 50.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forth e re aso ns st ate d above , we R EV ERSE the de c i si ono fthe di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd R EMA ND f orfurther pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththe fi ndi ng s ex pr es se d he r ein.N o. 10

- 2661 21 W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e, c o n c u r r i n g . I j o i n t he m aj or i ty’ s op ini on in fullexce pt as to PartI I
. C. Iag re e that, gi ven the f ac ts of thi s ca se, S heri ffCl ar ke’ s di scus si o n o fHutc hi ns ’ s di sc i pl i na r y hi st o r y i s no t ac ti o nabl e under § 1 983. Iwri te separ ate l y t o note thatI do not re ad the m aj or i ty’ s o pini on t o ove rturn o ur ci rcui t’ s l ongsta nd i ng r eco gni ti on that r eta l i ato ryspeec h m ay be acti onabl e under § 1 983 i fi t i s l i ke ly to d eter a per son o fo r d i n a r y fi r mn e s s fr o m e x e r c i s i n gh i s F i r s tA me nd

m ent r i ghts, ev en i fn ot a c com panie d by a thr eat, coe rci on, o r i nti m i dati on inti m ating punis hm ent. W e h av e lon g re c og n ize d su c h cla im s. F or ex am p le, in B a rt v. Telfo rd, 6 77F
. 2d 62 2, 6 25 ( 7th C ir. 1 98 2) , the pla i nti ffco m pla i ned ofa “cam pai gn o f p et ty hara ssm en ts ” d es ign ed to p u n ish h er for h av in g ru n for p u b lic offi ce a nd endorsin g a candi date a t a pre ss confer ence f o l l o wi ngthe pr i m ar y e l ec ti o n. Am o ngo th erthi ng s, s he w as al l ege dlyr i dicul ed f orbr i ngi ng a bi rthd ay cake to he r o ffi ce t o c el eb r at e a co - wor k er ’ s bi r th day

. F i ndi ng that a “ cam pai gn o fhar ass m ent w h ich tho ugh tr i vi al i n detai l m ay have been substa nti ali n gr oss , ” we re ver sed the di str i ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa l o fthe com p lain t a nd r em an ded f o r a f ac tu alde te r m i na ti o n ofwhethe r the al l ege d “cam pai gn r eached the thr esho l d ofact i onabi l i ty und erse cti on 1 983. ” Id. at 625. W e r ei te r at ed th i s po i nti n D e Gui s eppev. Vi l l ageof Bel l wood, 6 8 F
. 3d 18 7, 1 92 ( 7th C ir. 1 99 5) , b y e xpl aini ng th at “e ve n mi no r f o r m s o fr et al i at i o n” s ucha s “di m i ni shed re sponsibi l i ti es” o r “f al se ac cusati ons” can be ac tio n ab le u n d er th e F irs t A m en d m en t if su fficie n tly22 N o. 10

- 2661 ad ve rs e t o c h ill em p loy e e s p ee c h on m at te rs of p u b lic c on c er n . Sin c e th en , w e ha ve c on sis te n tly ap p l i e d th is st an d ar d

. E.g
. , Fai r l ey v . Fe r m ai nt, 4 82 F.3d 897, 90 3 (7th C ir. 20 07 ) (“S u p p os e t h e w h ite gu ar d s a t a p ris on m er c iles sly hara ss the bl ack guar ds and m ake thei r l i ves m i ser abl e, o r supp o s e the me n de mea n the wo men . S uc h mi s c o nd uct m ay be ac tio n ab le u n d er th e C on st itu tio n .”); M a ssey v . Johns on , 45 7 F
. 3d 711, 72 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06 ) ( “I n the fi rs t am en d m en t c o n t e x t, h ar as sm en t . . . m ay be ac tio n ab le if it i s d esigned to det er a pu bli c em p loyee’s free sp e e c h.”); Tie rney v. Va hle, 3 0 4 F
. 3 d 7 3 4 , 74 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 002) ( “[ D]efa m at i on infl i cts suffi ci ent har m o n i ts vi cti m to cou nt as retali ation .
. . . ”). Ou r sta nd ar d for acti onabl e r eta l i ato ryspeec h w as ac k no wl edg ed wi tha ppr o va l b y the S upr eme Co urt in R uta n v . Rep ubli ca n P a r ty o f Illino is. 49 7 U .S. 62 , 76 n .8 ( 1990 ) ( “[ T]he Fi rs t A m endm ent .
. . p ro tect s stat e e m plo yee s . . . fr o m ‘ ev ena n a cto fr et al i at i o n as trivi al a s f ai l i ng to hol d a bi rthd ay partyf ora pu b lic em plo yee . . . wh en i ntended t o pu ni sh her f or exer ci si ng her free s p eech ri ghts. ’ ” ( quoti ng R utan v. R ep ubli can P arty of Ill
. , 86 8 F. 2d 943, 954 n. 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89) ( ci ti ng B a rt, 67 7 F
. 2d at 622) ) )
. A nd i t has bee n adopted or re affi rm ed by a m ajorit y of o u r sis te r c irc u its
. S e e, e . g . , We l c h v . Ci am pa , 542 F.3d 927, 937 (1st C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (recogn izi ng retali atory ha r a s s m en t m ay be act ionable un d er obj ective test ); C o sza lter v. C ityof Sa lem , 32 0 F
. 3d 968, 9 76 ( 9th Ci r. 20 03) (sa m e); Nauckev . Ci ty of Pa rk Hil ls , 2 84 F
. 3d 923, 92 8 ( 8th C ir. 2002) (sam e); Tool as prashad v. Bure au of Pr i s ons , 28 6 F.3 d 5 76 , 5 84 -85 (D .C . C ir. 2 00 2) (s am e); Bloc h v
. Ri b ar, 15 6 F.3 d 67 3, 67 9-8 0 ( 6 t h C ir. 19 98 ) (sa m e); B er nheim v. Lit t, 79N o. 10

- 2661 23 F .3 d 31 8, 32 5-2 6 (2 d C ir. 19 96 ) (sa m e). Buts e eM c L au ghl in v. Wat s on , 2 7 1 F
. 3 d 5 6 6 , 5 7 3

- 74 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( h o l di ng th ats pee chmustb e a thre ato r c o er ci o n t o b e ac ti o nab le); Cols on v. Gr ohm an , 174 F.3d 4 9 8 , 5 13-14 (5th Cir. 19 99 ) ( hol di ngtha t, i n the F i r stAm en dm en t empl o y m en t conte xt, har ass i ng spee ch m ust co nsti tute “co nstr ucti ve ad ve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n ” t o b e a c tio n ab le); cf
. Ke e nan v. Te j e da , 2 90 F
. 3d 25 2, 2 58 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 2) ( r ec o g ni zing that outsi de of the em plo ym ent conte xt, speech th at woul d “ ch il l a pe r so n o fo r di na r y fi r m ne ss ” i s ac ti o nab l e)
. I nde ed, ev en th e F o ur th Ci r cui t ca se ci ted by the m aj o r i tya cc ept s th atr et al i at o r y s pee chtha t i s “su ffi ci entl y e m bar ra ssing, h u m i l i ating, o r em oti onal l y di str es sfu l” m ay b e “ o n e p os sib le e x c ep tio n ” t o its ru le re quir i ng a thre at ofpunishm ent forco gni zabi l i ty. Sua r ez Co rp. Indu s . v. M cGraw , 20 2 F
. 3d 676, 68 8 ( 4th C ir. 2000). I n l i g hto fo ure ndur i ngr ec o gni ti o n th atha r as sing re tal i ato rysp ee ch m ay be a cti onabl e under § 1 983, I w rite sep arately to m ake cl ear th at th e m ajority’s p os itio n n eit h er d ev i at es from n or d ist u rb s t h is w ellse tt led p os itio n . G ive n th e fa c ts of th i s c as e, I

— l i k e th e m aj or i ty

— do not bel i eve thatS heri ffCl ar ke’ s s tat em en ts rise to th e level of actionabili ty. Itherefore con cu r.

10- 24- 11