FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 23, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 10 05 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 58 4- CV-TWT -1 MALIK DOUGLAS, JI MM Y FAUST, et al ., Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us DEKALB COUNTY , GEORGIA, LOUIS GRAHAM, In di vi du al ly andinhi s Offi ci al Cap aci ty as Po li ce Ch ie f, etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 23 , 20 09 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BLACK an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Thi s ca se in vo lv es cla im s o f adve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on s s uf

fere d b y th ree DeKal b C ou nt y

po li ce o ffi cers . The g rav am encen te rs aro un d t he DeKalb Co un ty Po li ce Dep art m en t’s (DeKa lb Po li ce) d eci si on to di sc ip li ne off ic er Sh an e Sm it h
an d t erm in at e o ffi cers Mal ikDou gl as an d J imm y Fau st , all eg ed ly for p ro te ct ed
un io n a ct iv ity . The thr ee o ffi cers fil edsu itall eg in g t he y were re ta li at edag ai ns t be cau se of the ir u ni on in vo lv em en t wi th th e In te rn at io na l Br ot he rs of P ol ic e Offi cers (IBPO) . Defen da nt s DeKa lb Co un ty andLou is Grah am , Ray Fle m is te r, Tho m as Lane , Jan ic e Lov e, Mi ch ael Reynol ds , Ky le Jo ne s, an d Verno n J on es , DeKal b o ffi cers su edinth ei r in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es , cou nt eredth at Pl ai nt iff s wer e d is ci pl in edforin subo rd in at io n a ndvi ol at io n o f co un ty pol ic ie s. The is su e o n app eal is whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt erredingra nt in g fi na l s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

Defen da nt s. We con cl ud e, aft er re vi ewin g t he reco rd , su m m ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te . I. BACKGROUND Dou gl as an d F au stall eg e th ey were s us pe nd edan d s ub se qu en tl y term in at ed in vi ol at io n o f th ei r Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts to free do m of a ss oc ia ti on . Sm it h, si mil arl y , all eg es he was s us pe nd edan d d em ot edbe cau se of h is pro te ct edun io n act iv it ie s. Ad di ti on al ly, Sm ith a ll eg es he su ffer edrace di sc riminat io n b y DeKalb Co un ty andoff

ic ers Grah am

an d F le m is te r.

2Dou gl as , alo ng with o th er DeKal b P ol ic e o ffi cers in cl ud in g F au stan d

Sm ith, fo rm edth e DeKal b C ou nt y ch ap te r of

th e IBP O. Dou gl as , as p res id en t o f th e IBP O, beg ananin it ia ti ve to try to p utfin an ci al pre ss ur e o n DeKa lb Co un ty by de crea si ng rev enue th ro ug h ati ck etwrit in g s lo w do wn cam pa ig n. Pl ai nt iff

s di sp ut e itwas ati ck etwrit in g s lo w do wn an d s ug ge stitwas m erel y a “ ti ck et in it ia ti ve ” to rem in d o ffi cers of t he po li ce d ep art m en t’s p ol ic ie s an d t he pri or it y pl acedon res po nd in g t o c al ls as o pp os edto writ in g t raff ic ti ck et s. Dou gl as su rrep ti ti ou sl y

tap eda co nv ers at io n b etweenDou gl as an d Gra ha m , th e DeKal b C ou nt y

Ch ie f of Po li ce, ata m eet in g abo utth e IBP O’ s t ic ke t cam pa ig n. Si mil arl y , Fau stals o s urrep ti ti ou sl y tap eda co nv ers at io n wi th Grah am . Fau streque st eda m eet in g wi th Grah am to see k asu sp en si on reduc ti on aft er b ei ng su sp en de d fo r on e weekforhi s h aras sm en t o f a fel lo w off ic er fo r he r fai lu re t o pa rti ci pa te inth e IBP O’ s t ic ke t cam pa ig n. Atth e m eet in g Gra ha m no ti ceda bu lg e in Fau st ’s sh irtpo ck et . Whe n a sk edif h e h ada tape reco rd er, Fau stackno wled ge d he was re co rd in g Gra ha m witho uthi s co ns en t. Altho ug h S m ith d idno t s urrep ti ti ou sl y tap e a fel lo w off

ic er, h e li edto In te rn al Affai rs in ve st ig at or s ab ou t p os se ss in g h is tap e rec or de r. Whi le in ve st ig at in g ado m es ti c d is pu te in ci de ntat Do ug la s’s h om e, In te rn al Affai rs in te rv ie wedSm ith, wh o h adres po nd edto th e in ci de nt . Prio r to th e in te rv ie w, 3Sm ith was to ldto lea ve hi s t ap e rec or de r an d g un inhi s ca r. W he n S m it h re tu rn ed he was a sk edwhet he r he ha d atap e rec or de r on hi m . After h e in di cat edth e tape reco rd er was inhi s ca r, th e In te rn al Affai rs in te rv ie wer as ke d h im to retrie ve hi s tape reco rd er t o l is te n t o t he in te rv ie w of Do ug la s’s m ot he r. Sm it h t he n a dm it te d he ha d the tap e rec or de r on hi m . As a res ul t o f th e In te rn al Affai rs in ve st ig at io n, a co nduc t u nb eco m in g v io la ti on was s us ta in edag ai ns t Do ug la s fo r hi s co nduc t to wardhi s m ot he r. Smith was als o fo un d t o h av e en ga ge d i n c on du ctunbe co m in g of anoff ic er b ecau se he in it ia ll y

om itte d p ert in en t i nf

orm at io n fr om

hi s p ol ic e rep ort o f th e in ci de ntat Do ug la s’s h om e an d t he n l ie d abo utwhet he r he st il l h ad hi s t ap e rec or de r with h im du rin g h is Int ern al Affai rs in te rv ie w abo utth e in ci de nt . Ingra nt in g Def

en da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, the di stric t co urt fo un d Def

en da nt s h adpre se nt edco m pe ll in g e vi de nc e sh owi ng th e th ree o ffi cers were d is ci pl in edforvi ol at in g DeKa lb Co un ty pol ic ie s, ra th er tha n fo r un io n m em be rs hi p. Acco rd in g t o t he di st ric t co urt, the reco rdwas re pl et e wit h i ns ta nc es in whi cheach of the th ree o ffi cers vi ol at edDeKalb Co un ty pol ic y , whi chwou ld ha ve warran te d d is ci pl in e, ev eninth e ab se nc e o f un io n a ct iv ity . The co urt n ot ed th e ev id en ce o f pa rti ci pa ti ng ina ti ck etsl ow d own an d s ecre t t ap in g wer e rea so n en ou ghforterm in at io n.

4II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

W e rev ie w gra nt s o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , app lying th e sa m e le ga l st an da rdth e d is tri ctco urt u se d. Sh uf ord v . Fid el it y Na t’l Pro p. & Ca s. In s. Co
. , 50 8 F .3d13 37 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te “ if t he pl ead in gs , th e d is co ve ry

an d d is cl os ur e m at eri al s o n fi le , andan y affi da vi ts sh ow th atth ere i s n o g enui ne is su e as to an y m at eri al factan d t ha t the m ov an t i s en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m atte r of law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (c). Inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty , we rev ie w th e ev id en ce an d a sk“ whe th er the ev id en ce pr es en ts a su ffi ci en t d is ag reem en t t o re qu ire subm is si onto a jury or whe th er i t i s so on e-s id edth aton e p arty m us t p rev ai l as a m atte r of

law.” Ander

so n v . Lib er ty Lo bb y, In c. , 10 6 S . Ct. 2 50 5, 2 51 2 (1 98 6) . “ [M]ere co nc lu si on s an d u ns up po rte d factua l al le ga ti on s ar e le ga ll y in su ffi ci en t t o d efea t a s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n.” Ell is v. Eng la nd , 43 2 F .3d13 21 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ A grantof s umm ary jud gm en t m ay

be up he ldon an y

ba si s s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d.” Bur to n v . Tamp a Hou s. Au th
. , 27 1 F .3d12 74 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). III. DISC USSION The Fir stAm en dm en t p ro vi de s “ Co ng res s s ha ll m ak e n o l aw res pe ct in g a n es tabl is hm en t o f rel ig io n, o r pr oh ib it in g t he free ex erci se th ereo f; o r ab rid gi ng th e free do m of s pe ech , or o f th e p res s; or t he rig htof the pe op le pe aceabl y to 5as se m

bl e, an d t o p et it io n the Gov ern m en t fo r a red res s o f gr ie vanc es .” U.S. C O N S T . am en d. I. Im

pl ic itinth e ri gh t t o e ng ag e in th es e Fi rs t Am en dm en t act iv it ie s i s a “ co rres po nd in g ri gh t t o a ss oc ia te with o th ers inpu rs ui t o f a wid e va rie ty of po li ti cal , so ci al , eco no m ic , edu cat io na l, re li gi ou s, an d c ul tu ral en ds .” Rob er ts v. Uni te d Sta tes Ja ycees , 10 4 S . Ct. 3 24 4, 3 25 2 (1 98 4) . To es tabl is h a cl ai m un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 fo r vi ol at in g the ir F irs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts , pl ai nt iff s m us t s ho w (1) a vi ol at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , and(2) th e al le ge d v io la ti on was co m m it te d b y a pe rs on act in g u nd er co lo r of st at e la w. Se e, e.g . , Holmes v. Cr os by , 41 8 F .3d12 56 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ); Gri ff in v. Cit y o f Op a-Lo cka , 26 1 F.3 d 1 29 5, 1 30 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)
. App el la nt s ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f fi na l s umm ary jud gm en t i n fav orof Ap pe ll ees . Bas edup on ou r rev ie w of the reco rd , we are p ers ua de d the
ev id en ce d oe s n otsupp ort Ap pe ll an ts ’ as se rti on s tha t the adve rs e em pl oym en t

6act io ns were m ot iv at edby pro te ct edun io n a ct iv ity . Thu s the re was no 1
co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Altho ug h t he y

cal l i t a t ic ke t i ni ti at iv e rat he r th ana ti ck etsl ow d own , App el la nt s ad m itth ey

were i nv ol ve d i n t he IBPO’s t ic ke t cam pa ig n. Ap pe ll an ts do no t d is pu te a ti ck etwrit in g s lo w do wn ca m pa ig n i s a v io la ti onof Ge or gi a la w an d DeKa lb Co un ty pol ic y , forwhi choff ic ers co ul d b e d is ci pl in ed . Dou gl as an d 2 Fau stdo no t d is pu te th ey surrep ti ti ou sl y

tap e rec or de d asupe rio r of fic er . Sm it h adm it te d h e was un tru th fu l wi th Int ern al Affai rs whenask edwhet he r orno t h e h ad a tape reco rd er o n h im

du rin g the Int ern al Affai rs in te rv ie w. The re i s n o g enui ne is su e as to an y of t he se m at eri al fact s. Dis ci pl in e o f th es e o ffi cers was warran te d due to th ei r act iv it ie s an d a ct io n apa rt f ro m th ei r un io n i nv ol ve m en t. As t he re were ad equa te gro un ds to di sc ip li ne th es e o ffi cers
Since we a

re pe rsuade d the adve rse e mploy ment actions we re not motivated by protec ted 1 union activity , we ne ed not per form a Picke ring balanc ing. Picke ring v. Bd. of Educ. , 88 S. Ct
. 1731 (1968). F ollowing Picke ring , this Court has articulated a four- part a

naly sis for re taliation by a g overnme nt employer a g ainst an employee f or alleg ed constitutionally protec ted spee ch. The e mploy ee must show: (1) the speec h involved a matter of public conc ern; (2) the employee’ s fre e spee ch intere sts outweighe d the employer’ s interest in eff ective a nd eff icient fulfillment of its responsibilit ies; (3) the spe ech pla yed a substantial pa

rt in the adve rse e mploy

ment action; and (4) if a n employee satisfies her bur den on the f irst three steps, the burden the n shifts to the employer to show by

a prepondera

nce of the evidenc e that it would have ma de the same dec ision even in the a

bsence of the prote cted spe ech. Boyc e v. A ndrew , 510 F.3d 1333, 1343 ( 11th Cir. 2007) (c iting Cook v. Gwinnett County Sch. Dist. , 414 F.3d 1313, 1318 ( 11th Cir. 2005)). SeeO.C.G.A. 45-19- 2 (“N o public employee sha ll promote, encour ag e, or pa rticipate in 2 any strike . . .”) and O.C.G.A. 45- 19-1(3) (includingin the definition of “strike” the “stoppag e or deliberate slowingdown of wor k”). 7an d i ns uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t o s up po rt aco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, the di st ric t co urt d id
no t err in gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t o n Ap pe ll an ts ’ free do m of a ss oc ia ti on cl ai m . Noton ly w as su m

m ary jud gm en t ap pr op ria te on App el la nt s’ Firs t Am en dm en t cl ai m , bu t s umm ary jud gm en t was als o app ro pr ia te on Sm ith’s ra ce di sc riminat io n c la im . Sm ith, a C au cas ia n o ffi cer, al le ge s DeKa lb Co un ty, an d Offi cers Grah am

an d F le m is te r, Afri can -Am eri canoff ic ers , di sc riminat edag ai ns t hi m by sus pe nd in g a ndde m ot in g h im . A tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d fi nd s ev id en ce o f rac ia l d is cri min at io n a ga in stSm it h wan ti ng . Sm ith fa il edto est ab li shth e el em en ts of apri m a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n. Se e McDo nn el l Do ug la s C or p. v. Gr een , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 , 93 S. Ct. 18 17 (19 73 ); Co op er

v. So uthe rn Co
. , 39 0 F .3d69 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) , ov erru le d o n othe r gro un ds , Ash v. Tys on Foo ds , Inc
. , 12 6 S .Ct. 1 19 5 (2 00 6) . The thr ee App el la nt s wer e in vo lv edinth e IBP O’ s t ic ke t cam pa ig n. Sm it h, a C au cas ia n of fic er, was de m ot ed , wher eas Dou gl as an d F au st , Afric an -Am eri canoff ic ers , were t erm in at ed . Sm ith was di sc ip li ne d l es s h ars hl y th anDou gl as an d F au st . Not
on ly w as Sm ith i nv ol ve d i n t he ti ck etcam pa ig n, h e al so adm itte d t o l y in g t o a n

8In te rn al Affai rs in ve st ig at or . There is no ev id en ce Sm ith re cei ve d d is pa rat e 3 tre atm en t b ecau se of h is race . W e n ot e th atno twi th st an di ng Sm it h’s fa il ur e to m ak e o uta pr im a fac ie cas e, Defen da nt s h av e art ic ul at eda no n- di sc riminat ory ba si s fo r th ei r em

pl oym en t act io n. Texa s Dep t. o

f Cmt y. Aff ai rs v. Burdi ne , 10 1 S . Ct. 1 08 9, 1 09 3 (1 98 1) . As di sc us se d abo ve , parti ci pa ti ng inth e ti ck etcam pa ig n a ndun tru th fu ln es s wi th In te rn al Affai rs in ve st ig at or s i s a s uf fic ie nt , no n- di sc riminat ory ba si s fo r su sp en di ng an d d em ot in g S m ith. Mo reo ve r, Sm it h h as fai le d t o s ho w th e v io la ti on of co un ty pol ic ie s was a pr et ex tu al ba si s fo r de m ot in g h im
. Se e St. Ma ry ’s Hon or Ctr. v. Hi cks , 11 3 S . Ct. 2 74 2, 2 74 9 (1 99 3)
. IV. CONCLUSION Afte r th or ou gh ly revi ewin g t he reco rdan d c on si de rin g t he po si ti on s pr es en te d a t o ral arg um en t, we co nc lu de all ot he r is su es rai se d b y App el la nt s ar e witho utm eri t. W e aff

irm th e d is tri ctco urt o rd er i n a ll res pe ct s. 4 AFFIRMED.

Smith has fa iled to identify a similarly

situated offic er of

any ethnic or r acia l 3 background who wa s disciplined less harshly than he. Indeed, a s this C ourt has found no c onstitut ional violation, we nee d not consider the 4 qualified immunity

issue. 9