2007 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

8-30-2007 

# P rice v . C h affinch

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-4086

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

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 git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 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 git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. 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

" P r ic e v . C h affinch" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 478. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/478P RE CE DE NT I AL THE U NI TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 06- 4086

* S E R G E A N T C H R IS T O P H E R D . F O R A K E R , ind iv id u a lly

and i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas Super i nt endentof t he D el aw ar e St at e Pol i ce

v. CO L ONE L L

. AAR ON C HAF F I NC H; L I E UT E NANT

CO LON EL T H O M A S F. M A C L E I SH , i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al ca p ac ityas D ep u tyS u p erinten d en t of the D elaw are S tate P o lice ; D A V ID B . M IT C H E L L , in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity as S e c re tar yo f

th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

S a f e tya n d H o m e lan d S e c u rity o f t h e S t a t e o f

De l a wa r e ; DI VI S I ON O F S TAT E P OLI CE DE P AR T M E NT OF S AF E T Y AND H OM E L AND S E CU RI T Y S T AT E OF

DEL AW ARE ( D

. C

. C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 01207) CO RP OR AL B. KUR T P RI CE ; CO RP OR AL WAYNE

W AR REN * SERGEA NT C HR I STOPHER D

. FORA KER2 v. C O L O N E L L . A A R O N C H A F F IN C H , ind iv id u a llya n d in h is o ff ici al ca p ac ityas S u p erinten d en t of the D elaw are St a t e Pol i c e ; LI EU TEN A N T C O LO N EL T H O M A S F.

M AC L E I S H, in d iv id u a llya n d in h is o f f icia l ca p a c itya s D e p u ty S u p e r i n t e n d e n to f

t h e De l a wa r e S t a t e P o l i c e ; DAV I D B. M IT C H E L L , in h is of

ficial cap ac ityas th e S ec retary of t he D epar t m entof Safe t yand H om el and Secur i t yof t h e St a t e o f

Del a war e ; DI VI SI ON OF STATE POLI CE, DE P AR T M E NT OF S AF E T Y AND H OM E L AND S E CU RI T Y, S T AT E OF

DEL AW ARE ( D

. C

. C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 00956) B

. K ur tPr i ce, W ayne W arr en, * C h ri stop h er D

. F o rak er, A p p e llan ts *D i s m i s s ed Pert he C our t ’ s O r derof 11/ 7/ 06

_____________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r t h e D istri ct of

D elaw are D i s t r i ctC our tN os . : 04- cv- 1207, 04- cv- 0956 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e G r egor yM

. Sl eet

_____________________T he H onor abl e Loui s H

. Pol l ak, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge for * the U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 3 A r gued J une 8, 2007 B e f o re : S M IT H a n d G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJud ges, a n d P O L L A K , D is t r i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t30, 2007 ) C o u n se l: M a rtin D . H a v e rly T hom as S. N euber ger St ephen J

. N euber ger( ar gued) T h e N eu b erg er F irm 2 E as t7t h St r eet , Sui t e 302 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19801 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts E dw ar d T

. E l l i s ( ar gued) C ar m on M

. H ar vey M ont gom er y , M cC r acke n, W al ker& R hoads 123 Sout h B r oad St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19109 C ouns el f orAppel l ees

_____________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT4 _____________________ S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge

. A ppel l ant s C orpor al B

. K ur tPr i ce a nd C orpor al W ayne W a rre n , b o th f

o rm e r D e law a re S tate T ro o p e rs a n d in stru c to rs in t he D el aw ar e St at e Pol i ce Fi r earm s T r ai ni ng U ni t , appea l fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw pu rsua n t t o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 50( b)

. Pr i ce a nd W ar r en pre s ent t w o pr i nci pal i s s ues for r evi ew : ( 1) w het hert he act i vi t i es t heyengage d i n w er e pr ot ect ed byt he Pet i t i on C l aus e, a n d ( 2 ) wh e t he rt h e i rs p e e c h i s p r o t e c t e d a f t e rt h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n G ar cet t i v. C ebal l os , --- U .S . ---, 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 9 5 1 (2 0 0 6 ). W e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.
I.
T he ori gi ns of t hi s cas e dat e t o Sept ember 1998, w hen the D e law a re S tate P o lice (“ D S P ” ) o p e n e d a n in d o o r f irin g ra n g e in Sm yr na, D el aw ar e. T he r ange beca m e t he l ocus o f oper at i ons forthe Fi r earm s T r ai ni ng U ni t ( “FT U ”) , t he uni tt o w hi ch Pr i ce and W ar r en w er e as s i gned as i ns truct or s dur i ng t he t i m e per i od re lev a n t to th is c a se . T h e ra n g e a n d th o se w h o u se d it encount er ed a numberof di ffi cul t i es fr om t he out s et , i ncl udi ng pr obl ems w i t h t he hea t i ng, venti l at i on, and ai rcondi t i oni ng (“ H V A C ” ) s y s te m . Pr i ce a nd W ar r en w er e l ong- t er m m ember s of t he D SP at5 t he t i m e of the eve nt s gi vi ng r i s e t o t hi s case. Pr i ce ha d been par tof t he FT U s i nce 1996 a nd W arr en had be en as s i gned t o t he u n it i n 2001. Ser geantC hr i s t opherFor akerw as t he Sect i on C hi ef of t he F T U fr om A ugus t 1, 2001 t hr ough A pr i l 8, 2002, at w hi ch poi nthe w as m oved t o anot heruni t
. For akers ued C ol onel L

. A ar on C haff

inch o n A pr i l 24, 2002 forFi r s tA m endment r et al i at i on, and w on a j ur y ver di cti n hi s favor

. T he par t i es l at er agr eed thatFor akerw oul d be r ei ns t at ed t o hi s pos i t i on w i t h t he F T U a n d th a t th e m o n e tar yju d g m e n t ag a in st C h a f f in c h w o u ld be vacat ed. For aker r etur ned t o t he fi r i ng r ange on D ece m ber1, 2 0 0 3

. Pr i ce, W ar r en, and For akercons i der ed t he r ange c o n d iti o n s in to ler a b le, a n d w e re sp e c if ica llyc o n c e rn e d w ith h ea lth an d saf

etyissue s the re. T h e H V A C sy stem d id n o t w o rk pr oper l y , t he bul l ettr ap w as m al funct i oni ng, and off i cer s and s tudent s att he r ange w er e s uffe r i ng t he phy s i cal m ani fes t at i ons o f c o n tam in a tio n , inc lu d in g e lev a ted lev e ls o f h e a v ym e ta ls in t h e i r b l o o d

. Fo r a k e r s e n t a n u mbe r o f e - ma i l s r e g a r di ng t he det er i or at i ng condi t i ons att he r ange t o hi s s uper i or s , i ncl udi ng L i e u t e n a n tCol onel T hom as F. M acLei s h, C apt ai n G r eg W arr en, and Li eut enantR al ph D avi s. In an e

- m ai l dat ed D ece m ber19, 2003 he expl ai ned that , due t o a br oken d r i ve cha i n and damaged s pr ocketon t he conve y or , the d redgi ng s y s t em had been br oughtt o a com pl et e s t op. H e al s o out l i ned conc erns a b o u t P ri c e ’s a n d W a rr e n ’s e le v a te d b lo o d le v e ls

. I n ear l yD ece m ber , Pr i ce, W arr en, and For ak er deci dedFor akeral s o fi l ed a s epar at e ac t i on on A ugus t30, 2004 1 u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , w h ich w a s c o n so lid a ted w ith th is s u it fo r disco v eryp u rpo ses o n ly on F eb rua ry1 , 2 0 0 5

. F o rak er’s i ndepende ntact i on s et t l ed and w as di s m i s s ed o n O ct ober11, 2 0 0 6

. 6 t o s us pend ce r t ai n bul l ett r ap mai nt enanc e bec aus e t hey cons i der ed ca r r y i ng i toutt o be uns afe

. A tt r i al , W arr en expl ai ned t hatt hei robj ect i ve w as t o l i m i tt hei rexpos ur e t o l ead a n d o t h e ru n s a f

e me t a l s . Th e yc o n t i n u e d t o p e r f o r m o t h e rf

o r ms of r an g e mai nt enanc e, i ncl udi ng r emoval of s pentcas i ngs and tra sh . T h e th re e m e n h a d m e e tin g s to d isc u ss th e ra n g e w ith M acLei s h, C apt ai n G r eg W arr en, and the D i vi s i on of Faci l i t i es M a n a g e m e n t. I n M a rc h 2 0 0 4 , th e D S P c lo s e d th e ra n g e . Fol low i ng t he cl os i ng of t he r ange, t he St at e A udi t or r evi ew ed t he i s s ues s ur r oundi ng t he cl os i ng. Pr i ce, W arr en, and For akerm etw i t h t he A udi t or on M ay 12, 2004. T hei rat t or ney l at err ead thei rs t at ement s t o t he A udi t or , verbati m , t o t he D el aw ar e St at e N ew s , a local new s paper . A s t r ooper s , Pr i ce, W arr en, and F oraker w ere not p e rm itt e d t o speak t o the press w i t houtt he appr oval of super i or offi cer s . O n M ay 13, 2004, t hey w er e or der ed t o s ubm i tt o a hea r i ng exami nat i on t o det er m i ne w het her t hey w er e fi t for dut y . O n J une 25, 2004, Pr ice and W ar r en w er e pl ace d on l i ghtdut y . O n A ugus t19, 2004 , Pr i ce, W ar r en, and For akerfi l ed t hi s act i on. Pr i ce, W arr en, and 1 F o ra k e r a m e n d e d th e ir c o m p la in t o n O c to b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 to i ncl ude t he t w o count s ati s s ue her e. C ountO ne of the amended7 compl ai ntal l eged a vi ol at i on of the pl ai nti ffs ’ Fr ee Spee ch r i ght s , and C ountT w o al l eged Pet i t i on C l aus e vi ol at i ons . Pr i ce and W ar r en r et i r ed fr om t he D SP on A pr i l 7, 2006.
D u rin g d isc o v e ry , P ric e , W a rre n , a n d F o ra k e r so u g h t to di s covere- m ai l m essage s s t or ed on C haff i nch’ s har d dr i ve. Chaf fi nc h r e t i r e d i n M a y20 05

. Pur s ua ntt o r ou t i ne D SP pr ocedu re, a t echni ci an att he D SP re

- i m aged the har d dr i ve, des t r oy i ng anym es s ages s aved ther e. T he pl ai nt i ffs r eques t ed d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t o r a n a d v e rse in f e re n c e in stru c tio n o n th e b a sis o f sp o liatio n o f

e v id e n c e . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ied b o th m o tio n s . T r i al began on M ay15, 2006. T he D i s t r i ctC our tchar ged the ju ryo n M ay3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , the s am e d aythat the S u p rem e C o u rt deci ded G ar cet t i v. C ebal l os . T he next day , t he j ur y r etur ned a v e rd ic t f o r P ri c e , W a rr e n , a n d F o ra k e r. A ft ert he D i s t r i ctC our t ent er ed j udgm ent on t he ver di ct forPr i ce, W ar r en, and For aker , appel l ees C haff i nch, M acLei s h, D avi d M i t chel l , and t he D SP ( “D SP def endant s ”) m o v ed for ju d g m e n t a s a m a tter o f law u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 50( b)

. O n A ugus t14, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed t he m ot i on. T he C our t hel d that t he Fi r s t A m endmen t Spee ch and P et i t i on C l ause s di d n ot pr otectP ri ce and W arr en b ecause th e ir re p o rts u p th e D S P c h a in o f c o m m a n d a n d sta tem e n ts to t he A udi t orw er e pa rt o f t hei roffi ci al dut i es as T r ooper s and t heyhad bee n or der ed t o cooper at e. T he C our tdeni ed the8 m o tio n o f

P ric e , W a rre n , a n d F o ra k e r t o a m e n d th e c o m p lain t to conform t o t he evi dence att r i al u n derR ul e 15( b)

. For aker se ttl e d w ith th e D S P d e f e n d a n ts s h o r tl ya f

ter th e f ili n g o f th is appea l , and t he D i s t r i ctC o ur tent er ed an or derof di s m i s s al of h is c la im s o n O c to b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 6

. II.
T he D i s t r i ct C our thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on under 28 U

. S. C

. § 1331. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on p u rsua ntt o 28 U

. S.C. § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he gr antof a R u le 5 0 (b ) m o tio n f

o r j u d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . D iB el l a v. B or ough of

B eachw ood , 4 0 7 F

. 3 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). In evaluat i ng t he gr a ntof

j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w , “ w e mu st l ook att he evi dence i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o . . . t he ver di ct w in n e r[ s ], a n d d ra w a ll re a s o n a b le in f e re n c e s in [ th e ir ] f

a v o r.” S h eri dan v. E

. I

. D uP ontde N

em ours and C o. , 1 0 0 F. 3 d 1061, 1072 ( 3d C i r . 1996)

. I n Lightni ng Lube, I nc. v. W i t co C o rp. , 4 F

. 3 d 1 1 5 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ), w e ex p lai n ed that “a lth o u g h the c o u rt d raw s all rea so n ab le an d log ical inf ere n ce s in the n o n m o v an t’ s favor , w e mustaff

i r m an orde r gr ant i ng j udgm ent as a m at t erof l aw i f, upon r evi ew of t he r ecor d, i ti s appar entt hatt he ver di ct i s nots uppor t ed byl egal l ys uffi ci entevi dence

. ” I d. a t 1 1 6 6

. III

. Pr i ce a nd W ar r en ass er t t hat t hei r act i ons i n br i ngi ng t he pr obl ems at t he fi r i ng r ange t o t he att ent i on of t he governm ent9 con st i tute prot ect ed pet i t i on i ng act i vity un der t he F ir st A m endment

. I n t hei r amended compl ai nt , t heyal l eged thatt hey s uffe r ed adve r s e empl oy m ent act i on as a r es ul tof t hei rpet i t i ons t o the gov ernm ent fo r redres s o f gri evan ces. T he P et i t i on C l ause pr ovi des t hat “C ongr es s s hal l m ake no l aw . . . abr i dgi ng . . . t he r i ghtof t he peopl e pea cea bl yt o as s embl e, an d to pet i t i on t he go ve r nmen tfo ra r e dr e s s of gr i e va nc e s . ” U

. S. C ONST
. am en d

. I, cl

. 6. T h e fi r s tques t i on forourr evi ew i s w het herPr i ce a nd W ar r en’ s expr es s i ons ar e pet i t i ons w i t hi n t he meani ng of t he F ir s t A m e n d m e n t.
T he hi s t or yof t he P et i t i on C l aus e i s i ns t ruct i ve. Pet i t i ons w er e fi r s tut i l i zed i n A m er i ca dur i ng t he col oni al er a, w hen col oni s t s pet i t i oned t he col oni al as s embl i es forr es ol ut i on of p ri v a te d is p u te s a s w e ll a s f o r l e g is la tiv e a c tio n . See S t e p h e n A. H ig g in s o n , N o te , A Shor tHis t or y of the Rightt o P et i t i on G over nm ent

f orthe Redre s s of

G r i evanc es , 96 Y AL E L

. J. 142, 14 4-55 (19 86 ). B yt he ti m e the F ram ers pen ned t he F ir st A m endment and t he s t at es r at i fi ed the r i ghtof peopl e t o pet i t i on th e g o vernm ent, peti t i on i ng w as al rea d y a f irm ly es t abl i s hed–an d h i ghl yval ued–r i ghti n t he comm on l aw t r adi t i on, and one thati ncl uded the r i ghtt o gover nm ent al c o n s id e ra tio n o f

th e p e titio n . See i d. at 155- 56 & n. 92 ( quot i ng t he D ecl arat i on of Ind epen den ce: “ In everyst age o f t hese O p p re ss io n s W e h a v e P e tit io n e d f o r R e d re ss in th e m o st h u m b le t er m s : O urr epea t ed Pet i t i ons have be en ans w er ed onl yby r e p e a ted in

ju ry .”); see al

so J a m e s E . P f

a n d e r, S o v e r eign I m m uni t y and t he R ight t o P et i t i on: Tow ar d a F i rs tA m endm ent10 R ightt o P u rs ue Judi ci alC l ai m s A gai ns tthe G over nm ent , 91 N W
. U. L. R EV
. 899, 909 & n. 36 ( 1997) ( “Ear l ypr act i ce on the ‘pe ti t i on of r i ght , ’ w hi ch ca m e t o be s een a s an i m por t ant el ement of t he comm on l aw , i ncl uded a var i et y of fea tur es t hat w oul d l at erchar act er i ze pr er ogat i ve pr act i ce. ”) ; J ul i e M

. S p a n b a u e r, The F i rs tA m endm ent R ight t o P et i t i on G over nm ent fo r a R e dre ss o

f G rie v a n c e s: C u t Fro m a D iffe re n t C lo th , 21 H ASTINGS C ONST
. L

. Q. 1 5 , 2 2 -3 4 (1 9 9 3 ).
Ja m e s M a d iso n in c lu d e d th e rig h t to a ss e m b le a n d to

“ a p p ly [ ] to th e L e g isla tu re b y p e tit io n s” in h is d ra f t am e n d m e n ts of J une 8, 1789, and s epar at ed thes e r i ght s fr om t he fr eedoms of re lig io n , s p e e c h , a n d th e p re s s . See 1 A n n a ls o f C o n g . 451 (J o s e p h G a le s , e d

. 1 7 8 9 ) ; S p a n b a u e r, supra a t 3 9 -4 0 . In h is endor s ement of t he amend m en ts be for e t he H ous e, he ca l l ed upon t he r epr es ent at i ves t o “expr es s l ydecl ar e t he gr eatr i ght s of m anki nd s ecur ed undert hi s cons t i tut i on. ” 1 A n n a ls o f C o n g . 449 ( J os eph G al es , ed. 1789)

. T he H ous e of Repr es ent at i ves c o m b in e d th e s e rig h ts in to a sin g le a m e n d m e n t in th e ir m odi fi cat i ons , and sub s t i tut ed t he w or d “governm ent ” for

“ le g is la tu re .” S p a n b a u e r, supra at39- 40; 1 U

. S. H ous e Jour nal 85 ( A ug. 21, 1789)

. T he Senat e cha nged t he r i gh t of

“ a p p lic a tio n ” to p ro te c t th e ri g h t to “ p e titio n .” S p a n b a u e r, supra at42; 1 U.S . S e n a te J o u r n a l 7 0 -71 (S ep t. 4 , 1 7 8 9 ). A cknow l edgi ng t h e s e h i s t o r i c al r oot s , t he Supr eme C our ts t at ed:
W e have r ecogni zed thi s r i ghtt o pet i t i on as one of “t he most pr eci ous of t he l i ber t i es s afe guar ded by11 t he B i l l of R i ght s , ” and have expl ai ned thatt he r i ghti s i m pl i ed by“[t ] he very idea of a g o v e rn m e n t, r e p u b lic a n in f o rm .”
BE & K Con s t
. Co. v . N. L. R. B. , 5 3 6 U. S. 5 1 6 , 5 2 4

- 25 ( 2002) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ); s e e a l s o Add e r l e

y v . Fl o r i da , 3 85 U

. S. 3 9 , 4 9 n . 2 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ( Dou g l a s , J

. , d i s s e n t i n g ) ( r e c o u n t i n g a br i ef h ist or yof t he r i ghtt o pet i t i on i n bot h B r i t ai n and A m erica). H ow ever , t he r i ghtt o pet i t i on has u n der gone a s i gni fi cantt r ans for m at i on s i nce i t s i ncl us i on i n the B i l l of R ig h ts
. See H ig g in s o n , s upr a at 165 ( “D es pi t e t he cl earcol oni al pr act i ce thatl i nked pet i t i oni ng t o a cor ol l ary dut yof l egi s l at i ve re sp o n se , the S o u th e rn ‘g a g ’ pr o p o n e n ts [ o f sta tes ’ rig h ts w ith r es pect t o s l avery ] s ucce s s ful l y chal l enged t hi s l i nk and su b su m ed the ri g h t [to p eti ti o n ] w ith in free e x p re ssion

. ”); Mc D o n a ld

v . Sm ith , 4 7 2 U .S . 4 7 9 , 4 8 2 (1 9 8 5 ) (“ T h e rig h t to pet i t i on i s cutfr om t he s ame cl ot h as t he ot herguar ant ees of t hat A m endment , and i s an as s ur ance of a pa r t i cul arfr eedom of e x p re ss io n .”); i d. at485 ( i gnor i ng t he var i ed hi s t or i es of t he r i ght to p eti ti on and t he fr eedoms of s peec h, r el i gi on, and t he pr es s , and s t at i ng t hat“[t ] he Pet i t i on C l aus e . . . w as i ns pi r ed by t he s ame i deal s of l i ber t yand democr ac y tha tgave us t he f re e d o m s to sp e a k , p u b lish , an d a ss e m b le.” ); W M X Techs

. , I nc. v. Mi l l er , 197 F. 3d 367, 372 ( 9t h C ir

. 1999) ( en banc ) ( “The pr ot ect i ons aff

or ded by t he P et i t i on C l aus e have bee n l i m i t ed by the S u p rem e C o u rtto situ a tio n s w h ere an ind ividu al’s a s s o c ia tio n a l o r s p e e c h in te re s ts a re a ls o im p lic a te d .” ).I n San F i l i ppo , w e w r ot e t hat 2
A s appl i ed t o comm uni cat i ons t hatar e not pet it ion s, t he C onni ck

ru le m e a n s th a t a p u b lic empl oy ee w ho goes publ i c–e. g. , byw r i t i ng t o The N ew Y o rk Tim es

– wi th an empl oy m entdi s put e t hat is notof “publ i c conc ern” runs t he r i s k of bei ng d isci pl i ned byher publ i c empl oy er for u n d e rta k in g to d ra w p u b lic a tten tio n to a p riv a te d is p u te
. I d. at442. 12 I n S a n F il i

ppo v. B ongi ovanni , 3 0 F

. 3 d 4 2 4 (3d C ir

. 1994) , w e concl uded t hat a publ i c empl oy ee w ho has pet i t i oned t he gover nm ent t hr ough a form al m echa ni s m s uch as t he fi l i ng of a law sui tor gri evan ce i s prot ect ed u nd er the P et i t i on C l ause from ret al i at i on for t hat act i vity , even i f t he p et i t i on con cerns a m a tter o f so lelyp riv a te c o n c e rn . In d isc u ss in g th e d istin c t o rig in o f th e P e tit io n C lau se , w e d istin g u ish e d th e ru le la id o u t in C on nick v. M

yers , 4 6 1 U .S . 1 3 8 , 1 5 4 (1 9 8 3 ) w ith re sp e c t to sp e e c h , an d e x p lain e d th a t “w h e n o n e f ile s a ‘p e tit io n ’ o n e is 2 n o t a p p e a l i n g o v e r g o v e r n m e n t ’ s h e a d t o t h e g e n e r a l c i t i z e n r y: w hen one fil es a ‘ pet i t i on’ one i s addr es s i ng gover nm entand as ki ng gover nm ent to fi x w hat , al l egedl y , gover nm enthas br oken or has fai l ed i n i t s dut yt o r epai r . ” I d. at 44 2

. M o reo v er, w e n o ted th a t th e a rg u m e n t th a t
t h e sco p e of the pet i t i on r i ghtdepends upon t he13 c o n tex t in w h ich th e rig h t is e x e rc ise d is par t i cul ar l ypersua s i ve bec aus e t he s cope of t he fr ee s p e e c h r i g h t

– a r i g h tt h a t , l i k e t h e p e t i t i on ri gh t , i s st at ed in unq u a l i fi ed ter m s i n the fi rs t amendm ent–depends on t he cont ext i n w hi ch that r i ghti s exer ci s ed.
I d. a t 4 3 8

. For m al pet i t i ons ar e def i ned byt hei ri nvocat i on of a form al m echan i sm of redress

. T hu s, “[l ]aw sui t s, gri evan ces, [and] w or ker s compensa t i on cl ai m s ” ar e al l exampl es of for m al p e titio n s . I

d. at439 n. 18. C ont r aryt o t he r equi r ement s for sp e e c h p r o te c tio n d isc u ss e d b e lo w , w h e n a f o rm a l p e tit io n is m ade, t he empl oy ee ne ed not s how t hat t he s ubj ect m at t er of t he p e titio n in v o lv e d a m a t t e r o f p u b lic c o n c e rn . I

d. a t 4 4 2 . T h is di s t i nct i on is l egi t i m at e bec aus e t he Pet i t i on C l aus e i s not m e re ly d u p lic a tiv e o f

th e F re e S p e e c h C la u s e . I d. a t441- 42 ( “[W ] e bel i eve t hatt her e i s an i ndepende ntr eas on–a r eas on of cons t i tut ion al di m ens i on–t o pr ot ectan empl oy ee l aw s ui tor g rie v a n c e if

it i s o f th e so rt th a t co n stitu tes a ‘p e tit io n ’ w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

th e f irst a m e n d m e n t.”); s ee al s o B r ennan v. N or t on , 350 F. 3d 399, 417 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( cont r as t i ng t he re q u ire m e n ts f

o r p ro o f o f re talia tio n f

o r f re e e x p re ss io n w ith t hos e forpet i t i oni ng act i vi t yand not i ng t hat“a plainti ff ne ed o n lysh o w th a t h is/h e r la w su it w a s n o t f riv o lo u s in o rd e r to m ake outa pr i m a fa ci e cl ai m forr et al i at i on undert he Pet i t i on C la u s e ” ).14 T he Supr eme Courthas expl ai ned that“the val ues i n t he ri g h t o f pe ti ti o n as an im p o rt an t asp ec t o f self-g o v ern m en t are bey ond ques t i on. ” Mc D o n a ld , 472 U

. S. at483. A l tho u g h t he F re e S p e e c h C lau se a lso se rv e s the in ter e sts o f d e m o c ra c y, it d o e s s o in a u n iq u e m a n n e r. See, e. g. , B uckl ey v . V al eo , 42 4 U. S. 1, 93 n. 127 ( 1976) ( “[T] h e ce n tr al purpos e of the Speec h and Pr es s C l aus es w as t o as s ur e a s oci et yi n w hi ch ‘ uni nhi bi t ed, r obus t , and w i de- open’ publ i c deba t e conc erni ng m att er s of publ i c i nt er es tw oul d t hr i ve, fo r o n ly i n s uch a s oci et ycan a heal t hy r epr es ent at i ve democr acyfl our i s h. ” ( quot i ng N ew Y ork Ti m es C o. v. Sul l i van , 376 U

. S. 254, 270 ( 1964) ) )

. W her eas t he Fr ee Spee ch C l aus e pr ot ect s the ri ght t o “w i de- open” de bat e, t he Pet i t i on C laus e enc om pas s es onl yact i vi t ydi r ect ed t o a g o v e rn m e n t au d ien c e . T h is dis tin c tio n c o rre late s to th e se p a ra te a na l y s i s fo re a c h c l a us e . A c c or di ng l y , t he a r gu mentof t he D SP defe ndant s t hatbeca us e G ar cet t i v. C ebal l os , - - - U

. S.

- - - , 12 6 S. C t
. 1951 ( 2006) b ars p lai n tif fs’ c lai m s as s p ee ch , italso b ars t hem as pe t i t i ons i s i nacc ur at e– p eti t i ons ar e nots ynony m ous w ith s p e e c h f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

c o n s titu tio n a l a n a lysis

. T her e ar e less for m al m echa ni s m s byw hi ch a pe t i t i on m a yb e m a d e . San F i l i

ppo , 30 F. 3d at439- 40. I nfor m al pet i t i ons m ayi ncl ude l et t er s s uch as thos e ati s s ue i n McD onald and Sc ha lk v . G al l em ore , 906 F. 2d 491 ( 10t h C i r . 1990) ( per cur i am). Pet i t i ons m ade thr ough i nfor m al chann el s m ay o c c a sion a l esserdeg ree of con st i tuti on al prot ect i on t han t heir f o rm a l c o u n te rp a rt s . See, e. g. , San F i l i ppo , 30 F. 3d at439 ( par aphr as i ng the T ent h C i r cui t ’ s hol di ng i n Schalk t hatw hen15 “t h e ‘pe ti t i on’ ati s s ue [i s ] s i m pl ya l et t eri m pos i ng on t he g o v e rn m e n t n o o b lig a tio n to re sp o n d , it[ is] p ro p e rlya n a ly z a b le u n d e r th e c o n v e n tio n a l C onni ck rub ri c a p p li ca b le t o sp ee ch ”); i d. a t 4 4 2 ; s ee al

s o Mi nn. St at e Bd. f

orC m ty. C ol l

s . v. Knight , 465 U

. S. 271, 285 ( 1984) ( “N ot hi ng i n t he Fi r s tA m endment or in th is C o u rt’s c a se law in ter p re tin g it su g g e sts th a t th e rig h ts to sp ea k , asso ciate, and p eti ti o n req u ir e g o v ern m en t po li cy m ak ers to listen o r re sp o n d to in d iv id u a ls’ c o m m u n ica tio n s o n p u b lic issue s. ”).
I n Hi l lv . Bo r o u g h o

f Ku t z t o wn , 4 5 5 F

. 3 d 2 2 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 06) , w e addr es s ed t he Fi r s tA m endment cl ai m of a f or m er bor ough m anage rw ho m ade r epor t s t o t he B or ough C ounci l t hat l ed t o r et al i at i on fr om t he may or , w hi ch eve ntual l ycul m i nat ed in H ill’ s re s ig n a tio n . I

d. a t 2 3 0 -3 2

. W e e x p lain e d in a f o o tn o te t hat , al tho u g h “[w ] e have neverhel d .

. . t hata r epor tof a s uper i or ’ s m i s conductt o a l egi s l at i ve body w hen t he l egi s l at i ve bodyi s al so the r epor t er ’ s empl oy ercons t i tut es ‘ pet i t i oni ng act i vi t y , ’ ” t he compl ai nt s H i l l m ade t o t he P enns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons C om m i s s i on and t he EE O C “mi ghtw el l qual i fyas
‘ pet i ti oni ng. ’ ” I

d. at242 n. 24. H ow ever , w e dec l i ned t o m ake t hi s det er m i nat i on beca us e H i l l had notal l eged r et al i at i on bas ed o n h is c o m p la in ts to th e P H R C o r E E O C

. T he di s t i nct i on dr aw n i n Hill b e tw e e n H ill ’s r e p o rt to h is empl oy erand hi s compl aints t o t he admi ni s t r at i ve bodi es i l l us t r ates w hyt he pl ai nt i ffs ’ compl ai nt s up t he cha i n of comm and di d notcons t i tut e pet i ti oni ng act i vi t y . Pr i ce a nd16 W a rre n c o m p lain e d in ter n a ll y; th e yd id n o t p e tit io n a sta te agen cyqu a agen cy . T hey app eal ed t o thei r em ploy er, w hich al so h a p p e n e d to b e a s ta te a g e n c y , th ro u g h in f o rm a l c h a n n e ls

. See gener al l y H er rv. P eq u ea Tw

p. , 2 7 4 F

. 3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u e s t i o n e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s b y M ar i ana v. F is her , 338 F

. 3 d 1 8 9 , 1 9 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ); U n it e d A rtists T

h e a tre C irc u it, I nc. v. Tw p. of W ar r i ngt on , 3 1 6 F

. 3 d 3 9 2 , 4 0 0 (3d C ir .2 0 0 3 )); s ee al s o Hi l t on v. C i t

y of W heel i ng , 2 0 9 F .3 d 1 0 0 5 , 1 0 0 7 (7 th C i r . 2000) ( “[T] he r i ghtt o pet it i on forr edr es s of gr i evanc es [d o es n o t] im p lya d u tyo f th e g o v ern m en t t o m ak e e v ery go ve rn m ent em ploy ee [o r ent i t y ] a pet i t i on recei ver. ”). T hu s, t heycannots eek s ol ace i n t he Pet i t i on C l aus e. Pr i ce a n d W a r r e n f

u r t h e r a s s e r t t h a t t h e i r s p e e c h t o t he St at e A udi t orqual i fi es forpr ot ect i on under t he Pet i t i on C l aus e. H o w e v e r, as th e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d , alth o u g h th e ir sta tem e n ts t o t he St at e A udi t or m ay be char act er i zed as i nvoki ng a form al m echa ni s m , “t heyw er e or der ed t o cooper at e. ” St at ement s m ade undercompul s i on do notcomportw i t h t he bas i c pr i nci pl e of freedom un derl y i ng th e P et i t i on C l ause. T herefore, t hese stat ement s do notfal l w i t hi n t he cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i ons for p e titio n s to th e g o v e rn m e n t.
I V.
P ri ce and W arr en all ege that t hey w ere r et al i at ed ag ai nst forthei r sp eec h abouthaza r dous condi t i ons att he FT U and g o v ern m en tal co rrup ti o n , m isco n d u ct, an d m ism an ag em en t. InPr i ce a nd W ar r en al s o r ai s e an a r gum entas t o s pol i at i on of 3 evi dence

. W e have cons i der ed thi s ar gum ent , and concl ude t hat i ti s w i t houtm er i tand compel s no s epar at e di s cus s i on. 17 p a rticu lar , P ric e a n d W a rre n a ss e rt th a t th e ir sp e e c h u p th e c h a in of co m m and and t o the Stat e A ud i t or w as prot ect ed by t he F i rs t A m e n d m e n t b e c a u se it ex p o se d s e r io u s h e a lth a n d sa f e ty conce r ns and expos ed governm enti ncompet ence and w r ongdoi ng. T heyas s er tt hatt he hol di ng of G ar cet t i v. C ebal l os , - - - U. S. - - - , 1 2 6 S. Ct

. 1 9 5 1 ( 2 006) does notaff ect their claim s b ec au se th eir j o b d u tyas ex p ert firearm s instruc tors w as to t eac h s tudent s how t o fi r e w eapons , and s peaki ng out ab o u t hea lth an d saf

etyp rob lem s at th e f

ir ing ran g e w as n o t part o f th eir j o b fu n cti o n . T h eym aintain th at t h e D is tr ictC o u rt ’s gr a ntof j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w w a s i n e r r or . The D SP 3 defe ndant s cl ai m t hatt he s peec h i n ques t i on i s notpr ot ect ed beca us e P ri ce ’s and W arr en’ s compl ai nt s up t he cha i n of comm and fe l l w i t hi n t he s cope of t hei r dut i es as t r ooper s i n t he F T U , a n d w e r e t h u s f

o r e c l o s e d b y G a rc e tti . T h e D S P d e f e n d a n ts as s er tt hatPr i ce a nd W arr en’ s s peec h t o t he St at e A udi t orw as al so w i t hin t he scop e of thei r j ob du t i es. A s n o ted a b o v e , th e S u p re m e C o u rt iss u e d its o p in io n in G a rc e ttion M ay30, 2 0 06, t he s ame dayt hatt he j ur yw as c ha r ge d i n thi s c a s e . A ft e rhe a r i ng a r gu menton t he D SP defe ndant s ’ m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw under F ed era l R u le of

C ivil P roc ed u re 5 0 (b), th e D istri ct C o u rtI n G a rc e tti , the C o u rt a p p li e d th e ru le it e n u n c iate d to 4 C e b al l os’ cl ai m s. T hu s, t he rul e ann ou nced w as not purely p r o sp e c tiv e , an d th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlya p p lied it i n th is cas e, w hi ch w as pen d ing att he t i m e of the G a rc e tti deci s i on. See, e. g. , Li nkl et t erv. W alker , 3 8 1 U .S . 6 1 8 , 6 2 2 (1 9 6 5 ). 18 c o rre c tlyh e ld th a t G a rc e ttim us tbe appl i ed i n t hi s cas e. 4
I n G a rc e tti , t he Supr eme C our t addr es s ed t he quest i on of “w het hert he Fi r s t A m endment pr ot ect s a governm entempl oy ee fr om di s ci pl i ne bas ed on s peec h m ade pur s uant t o t he empl oy ee’ s offi ci al dut i es . ” I d. a t 1 9 5 5

. C e b a llo s w a s a d e p u ty d is tr ic t a t t o rn e yin L o s A n g e le s . W h ile p e rf o rm in g th a t r o le , a defe ns e at t or n eyappr oache d hi m abouti nacc ur aci es i n an a f f id a v it th a t h a d b e e n u se d to o b tain a c ritica l se a rc h w a rra n t. C eb all o s inv esti g ated a n d d eterm ined that there w ere in a c c u ra c ies th a t w e re still u n re so lv e d a f ter c o n su ltatio n w ith t h e a f f i a n t
. He i n f

o r me d h i s s u p e r v i s o r s , c o mp o s e d a me mo w h ich re c o m m e n d e d d ism iss a l o f th e c a se , an d m e t w ith h is s uper vi s or s and t he affi ant t o di s cus s t he cas e. T he pr os ecut i on pr ocee ded, and C ebal l os w as cal l ed as a w i t nes s fort he def ens e. F o llo w in g th e trial, C e b a llo s w a s re a ss ig n e d , tran s f e r re d to anot hercour t hous e, and deni ed a pr om ot i on. H e fi l ed an u n su c c e ss f

u l em p lo y m e n t g rie v a n c e , a n d th e n f iled a n a c tio n in f e d e ra l co u rt u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , alle g in g re talia tio n in v io la tio n o f

th e F ir s t a n d F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n ts
. Focus i ng on t he di s t i nct i on bet w een e m pl oy ee- s p eechI n r ej ect i ng “t he not i on t hatt he Fi r s tA m end m ents hi el ds 5 f ro m d isc ip lin e th e e x p re ss io n s e m p lo y e e s m a k e p u rsu a n t to t hei rpr ofes s i onal dut i es , ” t he maj or i t yopi ni on not ed t hatt he “pow er ful net w or k of legi s l at i ve ena ct m ent s –s uch as w hi s t l ebl ow erpr ot ect i on l aw s and l abor codes –avai l abl e t o t hos e w ho s e e k to e x p o s e w ro n g d o in g ,” p ro te c ts e m p l o y e e s . I d. at1962. T he C o u r tembra ced the not i on t hat–atl eas ti n t he cont extof s t at ement s m ade by“a publ i c empl oy ee . . . i n t he cour s e of doi ng hi s orherj ob”–pr ot ect i on fr om r et al i at i on and prot ect i on under th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t a re m u tu a lly e x c lu s iv e c o n s id e ra tio n s . 19 and ci t i zen- s peec h, t he C our t hel d t hat “w hen publ i c empl oy ees m ake s t at ement s pur s uantt o t hei roffi ci al dut i es , t he empl oy ees ar e nots peaki ng as ci t i zens for Fi r s t A m endment purpos es , and t he C ons t i tut i on does noti ns ul at e t hei rcom m u n i cat i ons fr om em pl oy erdi s ci pl i ne. ” I d. a t 1 9 6 0

. Th e Cou r t e mph a s i z e d t he i m por t ance of all ow i ng gover nm entempl oy er s “s uffi ci ent di s cr et ion to m anage t hei roper at i ons . ” I d. ; see al so W at ers v. C h u rc h ill , 511 U

. S. 6 6 1 , 671- 72 ( 1994) ( pl ur al i t yopi ni on) ( “W e have ne verexpl i ci t l yans w er ed thi s ques t i on, t hough w e have al w ay s as s um ed t hati t s pr emi s e i s cor r ect–t hatt he governm ent as empl oy eri ndeed ha s farbr oaderpow er s t han does t he gover nm entas s over ei gn. ”)

. T he C our tr el i ed on t he undi s put ed 5 fac t tha tC ebal l os w r ot e hi s m emo purs uantt o hi s j ob re sp o n sib ili ties in e x p lain in g th a t “ [ w ]e

.. . h a v e n o o c c a sio n to ar t i cul at e a c om pr ehens i ve fr amew or k fordefi ni ng t he s cope of an empl oy ee’ s dut i es i n cas es w her e t her e i s r oom fors er i ous debat e. . . . T he p roper i nqui r yi s a pr act i cal one. ” I d. at1961.20 A ccor di ngl y , Pr i ce an d W arr en ar gue t hatt heyw er e not funct i oni ng w i t hi n t he scope of t hei rempl oy m entdut i es ei t her w hen t heym ade thei rs t at ement s t o the S ta t e A udi t oror compl ai ned up t he cha i n of comm and.
W e br i efl yaddr es s ed t he i m pactof G a rc e tti i n Hi l lv. Bo r o u g h o

f Ku t z t o wn , 4 5 5 F .3 d 2 2 5 (3 d C i r . 2 0 0 6 ). H ill, a B o ro u g h M a n a g e r, alle g e d lysu f f e re d re talia tio n f

o llo w in g h is r e p o r t s o f

mi s c o n d u c t b y t h e ma y o r t o t h e Bo r o u g h Co u n c i l

. He adm i t t e d t o i s s ui ng t hi s r e po r t“ pu r s ua ntt o h i s of fi c i a l du t i es” to p ro te c t B o ro u g h e m p lo y e e s . I d. a t2 4 2

. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we concl uded t hat“he w as nots peaki ng ‘ as a ci t i zen’ w hen he m ad e t h ese rep o rt s, an d thu s, as a m att er of law , the re p o rt s are n o t pro tected sp ee ch [u n d er G a rc e tti ]

. ” I d.
H ow ever, w e reve rs ed the di sm i ssal of H i l l ’s F i rs t A m endment r et al i at i on cl ai m t o t he ext entt hati tconce r ned H i l l ’ s advoca cy of i deas , pr i nci pl es and pr oj ect s di s favor ed by th e m a y o r o n th e g ro u n d s th a t “w e c a n n o t d e te r m in e in th is pr ocedur al pos tur e w het hert he s peec h i nvol ved a mat t erof publ i c conc er n. ” I

d. W e expl ai ned tha t“[t ] hatdet er m i nat i on m us t be m ade aft er an exami nat i on of ‘ t he cont ent , form , and cont extof [the] s t at ement , as r evea l ed by t he w hol e r ecor d. ’ ” I d. at243 ( quot i ng R anki n v. McPhers on , 4 8 3 U

. S

. 3 7 8 (1 9 8 7 )). T hus , t he Hill opi ni on fol l ow ed t he G a rc e tti appr oach by r emandi ng t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t for an i nqui r yi nt o w het hert he empl oy ee spoke as a ci t i zen and, i f s o, “w het hert he [may or ] had a n adeq uate j ust i fi cat i on for t reat i ng t he em ploy ee differ e n tly21 fr om any ot herm ember of t he gene r al publ i c. ” G a rc e tti , 12 6 S. C t
. at 1958. I n cont r as tt o Hill , P ri ce an d W arren ’s claim s w ere p rese n ted i n d etail at a jurytr ial , g iving b o th the D istri ct C o u rt and thi s C ou rtco m p reh en sive inf o rm ati o n fro m w h ich to answ er th e q u e stio n o f

w h e th e r P ric e a n d W a rre n sp o k e p u r s u a n t to th e ir o f f ic ia l d u tie s . Pr ece denti n t he Fi ft h and N i nt h C i rcui tC our t s of A ppeal s al s o poi nt s t o t he conc l us i on w e r eac h her e. I n Wi l l i a ms v. D al l as I

ndepende ntSchool

D is t r i ct , 4 8 0 F

. 3 d 6 8 9 (5th C ir

. 2007) ( percur i am), t he Fi ft h C ir cui tappl i ed G a rc e tti to for ecl os e t he r et al i at i on cl ai m of a hi gh s chool at hl et i c di r ect or w ho w as di s char ged aft er w r i t i ng a m emo t o his princi pal conce r ni ng t he han d l i ng of s chool at hl et i c funds

. N ot i ng G a rc e tti ’s i n

jun cti o n that F ir st A m en d m en t pro tecti o n “d o es not i nves t[empl oy ees ] w i t h a r i ghtt o p erf o r m t hei rj obs how ever th e yse e f

it, ” th e C o u rt h e ld th a t itw a s w ith in W ill iam s’ “ d a ily oper at i ons ” t o m anage t he at hl et i c depar t m ent , and becaus e he n e e d e d in f

o rm a tio n o n th e a th letic a c c o u n ts in o rd e r to b e a b le to d o th a t, h is m e m o ra n d u m to h is s u p e rio r c o n c e rn in g a c c o u n ts w a s n e c e s s a ry f

o r h im to c o m p le te h is jo b

. I d. at 69 4

. T h e C o u rt n o t e d t h a tt h i s o u t c o me wa s d i c t a t e d b yt h e f a c tt h a t“ W i l l i a ms had s peci alknow l edge th a t $ 2 0 0 w a s ra ise d a t a b a sk e tb a ll t ou rnam ent, ” a n d that he w as “ expe r i ence d w ith stan d ard oper at i ng pr ocedur es forathl et i c depa r t m ent s . ” I d. (e m p h a sis added)

. A ppl y i ng t he Fi ft h C i r cui t ’ s u n d ers t andi ng, Pr i ce a nd W ar r en w er e ac t i ng w i t hi n t hei rj ob dut i es w hen t heyexpr es s ed th e ir c o n c e rn s u p th e c h a in o f c o m m a n d b e c a u se th e yn e e d e d toW e r ecogni ze thatPr i ce a nd W arr en di d nothave t he sor tof 6 s peci al i zed know l edge r equi r ed t o per for m cer t ai n haza r dous m ai nt enanc e w or k on t he bul l ett r ap. T he spec i al know l edge a nd exper i ence r efe r ence d her e i s t hei rdai l yi nt er act i on w i t h t he equi pm ent , w hi ch putt hem i n the pos i t i on t o know w hen p ro b le m s a ro s e . 22 have a funct i oni ng bul l et tr ap t o conductt hei reduca t i onal pr ogr ams and i tw as t hei rs peci al know l edge a nd exper i ence w i t h t he bul l ett r ap t hatdemon str at ed t hei rr es pons i bi l i t yfor 6 e n su rin g its f

u n c tio n a lityb yre p o rtin g p ro b lem s to th e ir s u p e ri o rs . O urr es ul ti s al s o cons i s t entw i t h Frei t ag v. A yers , 468 F .3 d 5 2 8 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t
. deni ed , 127 S. C t
. 1918 ( A pr . 2, 2007)

. I n Fr ei t ag , a fe m al e cor rec ti o ns offi cerw as t er m i nat ed af ter fil ing rep o rt s d o cu m en ti n g sex u al h ara ssm en t b yp ri so n ers and inac t i on on t he partof hers uper i or s . A ppl y i ng G a rc e tti to herFi r s tA m endment cl ai m s , t he N i nt h C i r cui texpl ai ned t hat th e re p o rt s s h e s u b m itte d w e re p u rs u a n t to h e r o f f ic ia l d u tie s . I

d. at 546

. Howev e r , t h e Cou r td e c l i n e d t o h o l d t h a ta l e t t e rs he w r ot e t o t he D i r ect orof t he C al i for ni a D epar t m entof C o rrecti o n s an d R eh ab il it ati o n ex p lai n ing the h o sti le w o rk envi r onm ents he had e ncount er ed w as w i t hi n her j ob dut i es , and re m a n d e d th a t i s s u e to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. I d. A par tfr om t he m in o r f a c tu a l d istin c tio n s b e tw e e n a p riso n g u a rd ’s d u tyto w rite i nternal r epo rt s abou t pri soner m i scond uct an d h er s up ervi sors ’ d il atoryresp o n se a n d P ri ce an d W arren ’s resp o n s ibil ityto rep o rtT he Si xt h C i r cui tdi d notbel i eve thatt he G a rc e tti inq u iry 7 r equi r ed di s t ri ct cour ti nvol vement
. I n H aynes v. C i t

y of C irc lev ill e , 4 7 4 F

. 3 d 3 5 7 ( 6 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , t h e Co u r tr e j e c t e d a K9 uni t pol i ce offi cer ’ s cont ent i on t hat hi s compl ai nt s r egar di ng cut s t o t h e K -9 pr ogr am w er e pr ot ect ed fol l ow i ng G a rc e tti

. C har act er i zi ng t he mem o H aynes w r ote t o t he Pol i ce Chi ef a s “refl ect [i ng] not hi ng m or e t han ‘ t he qui nt es s ent i al empl oy ee b ee f’: m a n ag em en t has ac ted in co m p eten tl y , ” the C o u rt 23 re q u ir e d b u lle t tr a p m a in te n a n c e , Fr ei t ag hel ps t o i l l us t r at e t he connec t i on bet w een Pr i ce a nd W arren ’s s peec h and t hei rj ob d u tie s . T he N i nt h C i r cuit ’s r emand of t he ques t i on w het her Fr ei t ag’ s l et t er of compl ai nt t o t he D i r ect orw as w i t hi n herj ob dut i es i l l us t r at es t he fac t
- i nt ens i ve natur e of t hi s i nqui r y . U nl i ke t he q uest i on o f

w hetherspeech i s prot ect ed b yt he F i rs t A m endment , t he ques t i on of w h ethe r a pa r t i cul ari nci dentof speech i s m ade w i t hin a part i cularplai nti ff’s jo b d u ties i s a m i xed ques t i on of fac t and l aw . T hus , as t he N i nt h C i r cui thel d, t he pr operr es ol uti o n o f chal l enges t o t he des i gnat i on of s uch s peec h i s t o defe rt o t he di s t r i ct cour t , beca us e “ha vi ng pr es i ded overt hi s and r el at ed l i t i gat i on fors ever al y ear s , [i t ] m aybe i n a b e tte r p o s itio n to m a k e th e re le v a n t f a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s ....” Fr ei t ag , 4 6 8 F

. 3 d at 54 6

. A cc o rdin g ly , P ri ce an d W a rr e n ’s claim s of r et al i at i on bas ed on t he Fi r s tA m endment are for ecl os ed bec aus e, as the D i s tr i ctC our tfound, r epor t i ng problem s att he F T U w as w i t hin t heiroff i ci al j ob du t i es. 7exp l ai ned t h a t “ [ i] n lodging h i s prot est s t o C hief G rayagainst t he t r ai ni ng cutbacks , H aynes w as act i ng as a publ i c empl oy ee carry ing outhi s pr ofes s i onal r es pons i bi l i t i es . ” I d. at364- 65 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. H ow ever , t he Si xt h C i r cui t al s o s ai d that “[t ]he fact t hat H ay nes com m un i cat ed sol el y t o hi s superi or al so in d ica te s th a t h e w a s s p e a k in g ‘in [ h is] c a p a c itya s a p u b lic empl oy ee. . . . ’ ” I

d. at 36 4 (qu o t i ng Mi l l s v. C i t y of E vans vi l l e, I nd. , 45 2 F. 3d 64 6, 64 6 ( 7th C i r. 20 06 ))

. A s G a rc e tti expl ai ned, the i nqui ryi s nuance d: t he fa ctt hatan empl oy ee s peaks pr i vat el yi s notconcl us i ve as t o w het hert he s peec h i s w i t hi n t he s c o p e o f h is o r h e r j o b d u tie s . I n Mill s , t he Seventh C i r cui tm ade a s i m i l arruli ng. 452 F .3 d a t 6 4 8 . T h e C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t: M ill s w a s o n d u ty , in u n if o rm , an d e n g a g e d in di s cus s i on w i t h hers uper i or s , al l of w hom had j us temer ged fr om C hi ef G ul l edge’ s br i efi ng [on per s onnel change s ]

. She s poke i n hercapa ci t yas a p u b l i c e mpl o y e e c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e f o r mat i on an d ex ec u ti o n o f o ff

ici al po li cy . U n d er G a rc e tti herempl oy er c oul d dr aw i nfer ence s fr om her sta tem e n ts a b o u t w h e th e r sh e w o u ld z e a lo u sly i m pl ement t he C hi ef’ s pl ans or t r y t o u n d erm i ne t hem; w hen t he depa r t m entdr ew t he l att er i n f e r e n c e i tw a s f

r e e t o a c ta c c o r d i n g l y. I d. T h e C o u rt f

u rth e r h e ld th a t “ [ p ]u b lic em p lo y e rs m u st b e a b le t o change as s i gnm ent s i n r es pons e t o event s (i n cludi ng stat em ents ) that r eve a l w h e th e r e m p lo y e e s w ill b e f a ith f u l ag e n ts o f th e d e c is io n s m a d e b y th e p o litic a lly a c c o u n ta b le m a n a g e rs .” I d. 24 A s t he C our texpl ai ned i n G a rc e tti , t he fa ct s t hat25 “C ebal l os expr es s ed hi s vi ew s i ns i de hi s off ice, r at hert han p u b licly ,” a n d th a t h is m e m o c o n c e rn e d th e su b jec t m a tter o f

h is empl oy m ent , w er e non- di s pos i t i ve. 126 S. C t
. at1954. T hus , t he co n tr o ll ing fa ct i n the c ase at ba r i s tha t Price a n d W arren w ere e x p e c t e d , p u r s u a n t t o t h e i r j o b d u t i e s , t o r e p o r t pr ob l e ms conce r ni ng t he oper at i ons at t he r ange up the cha i n of comm and. P ric e a n d W a rre n sp o k e in ter n a llyw ith re sp e c t to th e h e a lth condi t i ons att hei rw or kpl ace . T heyw er e r equi r ed t o s peak up t he cha i n of comm and and w er e pr event ed fr om s peaki ng t o t he press w i t ho ut pri or app roval

. P ri ce and W arr en w e re l i kew i se expect ed t o r epor tt rut hful l yt o t he St at e A udi t orupon bei ng o rd e re d to d o s o . T h e r e s u l tr e q u i r e d b y G a rc e tti i l l us t r at es how t hat opi ni on nar r ow ed t he C ou rt ’s jur i s prudence i n t he ar ea of em p loy ee sp ee ch

. A lth o u g h u n d er G a rc e ttian empl oy ee’ s r i ght to p ro tes t m a tters o f p u b lic c o n c e rn is n o t au to m a tica lly f o rf e ited b yh is o r h e r c h o ice o f a w o rk p lac e f

o ru m , tha t rig h t is lim ite d

. C om

pa re C on nick v. M

yers , 4 6 1 U .S

. 1 3 8 , 1 4 8 n .8 (1 9 8 3 ), w it h G a rc e tti , 126 S. C t
. at1959 ( i dent i fy i ng the “con t rol l i ng fact or” i n rem ov i ng speech from t he F i rs t A m endment as bei ng t hatt he expr es s i ons w er e made pur s uant to e m p lo y m e n t d u ties ); G i vh a n v. W es t er n Li ne C ons ol

. Sch. D ist. , 4 3 9 U .S . 4 1 0 , 4 1 3 (1 9 7 9 ).
R epor t i ng pr obl ems att he fi r i ng r an g e w as among t he tas k s th a t P ric e a n d W a rre n w e re p a id to p e rf o rm . T h e ir pos i t i o n s i n t h e DSP r e q u i r e d t h e m t o r e p o r t u p t h e c h a i n of26 comm and, and t hei r pos i t i ons as i ns t ruct or s w ho r egul ar l yus ed and per for m ed l i ghtm ai nt enanc e on t he equi pm entatt he r ange on a dai l y bas i s putanyenvi r onm ent al conce r ns t her e w i t hi n t he s cope of t hei rr out i ne operati ons . A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, t hei r annual per for m ance r evi ew s s ugges t t hat Pr i ce and W arr en w er e i n v o l v e d i n workp l a c e s afe t yi s s ues –Pr i ce’ s r epor texpl ai ns t hathe “a i ded hi s s uper vi s or s i n i dent i fy i ng s afe t y i s s ues att he fac i l i t y , ” and “ r eac hed outt o expert s i n t he fi el d of vent i l at i on [and] fi r i ng r ange de s i gn al ong w i t h heavy m et al expos ur e and con t am i nati on [exp ert s] and est abli shed a rapp o rtw i t h these pr ofes s i onal s t o s ear ch outt he r ootcaus e and c ont r i but i ng fac t or s s ur r oundi ng t he dangers w e face i n expos ur e t o heavy m etal co n tam ination

. ” T h ere is som e su g g esti o n in the rec o rd t hatPr i ce’ s s ear ch forext ernal as s i s t ance m ayhave been m ot i vat ed byper s onal conce r ns , butt he fact t hat Pr i ce m ayhave excee ded t he ex pectat i on s of his form al j ob descriptio n as a fi r earm s i ns t ruct or does not m ean thatt heyw er e notw i t hi n t he s c o p e o f h is d u tie s . G a rc e tti , 126 S. C t
. at 1961- 62 ( “For m al j ob des cr i pt i ons oft en bea rl i t t l e r es embl ance t o t he dut i es an empl oy ee actual l y i s expec t ed t o per for m . . . . ”)

. W arr en admi t t ed att r i al t hathe r egu larl ydeal tw i t h t he w at eri n t he bul l ett r ap, un cl og ged t he p um ps, and repl aced the fi l t ers . A l t ho ug h volunt ary effo rt s t o en gag e i n p ub l i c dis cou rs e do notaut om at i call y r emove i nt ernal w or kpl ace s peec h fr om cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i on, Pr i ce a nd W arr en w er e re qui r ed byt he t er m s of their empl oy m entt o m ai nt ai n a s afe l earni ng e n v ir o n m e n t a t th e F T U

. S e e G a rc e tti , 126 S. C t
. at1960I n s uppor tof t hei rcont enti o n that such r epor t i ng w as not 8 w i t hi n t he s cope of t hei r empl oy m ent , Pr i ce a nd W arr en di r ect u s t o t h e Ei g h t h Ci r c u i t ’ s h o l d i ng i n L indse y v. C i t y of O r r i ck ,

- - - F. 3d -

- - , 2007 W L 1814943 ( 8t h C i r . J une 26, 2007)

. L i nds ey w as t he publ i c w or ks di r ect orfort he C i t y . I n t hatr ol e he m aintaine d the C ity ’s pa rks, w ater sy stem s, str ee ts, an d sew ers 27 ( “R efus i ng t o r ecogni ze Fi r st A m endm entcl ai m s bas ed on gover nm ent em p loy ees ’ w or k pr oductdoes notpr eventt hem fr om par t i ci pat i ng i n publ i c deba t e. T h e em pl oy ees r et ai n the p ro sp e c t o f

c o n stitu tio n a l p ro tec tio n f o r th e ir c o n trib u tio n s to t he ci vi c di s cour s e. T hi s pr os pectof pr ot ect i on, how ever , does noti nves tt hem w i t h a r i ght t o per for m t hei r j obs how evert hey s ee f i t
. ”)

. I n hi s ev al uat i on, Pr i ce w as “t as ked” w i t h “the s afe exec ut i on of t he A cade m y Pat r ol Pr ocedur es Pr ogr am” and t he cr eat i on of “a new and more appli cabl e s etof Fi r i ng R ange SafetyR ul es . ” Si m i l ar l y , one of W arr en’ s “obj ec ti v es” fort he n e x te v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d wa s “ c o n d u c t [ i n g ] a s a f e F i r e a r ms T r ai ni ng Pr ogr am” for w hi ch t he pl an of a ct i on w as i dent i fi ed t o i ncl ude “[ e] ns ur [i ng] al l s tudent s and i ns t ruct or s pr act i ce appr oved s afe t ypr ocedur es . ” W arr en’ s per for m ance appr ai s al j us t i fi cat i on not ed t hatone of the “a ccompl ishm en ts of t he Fi r earm s T r ai ni ng U ni t ” dur i ng t he per i od fr om O ct ober1, 2002 t hr ough Sept ember 30, 2003 w as t hat t he uni t“[c ] om pl et ed t he a lte ra tio n s a n d m o d if

ic a tio n s to th e B u lle t R e c o v e ry sys te m .” W i t h r es pect t o w or k habi t s , Pr i ce and W arr en w er e bot h gi ven h i g h ma r k s f

o rt h e i rc a r e of t h e e q u i p me n tr e l a t e d t o f i r e a r ms t rai ning. N otabl y , the plai nti ffs did not i den t i fyany on e el se

8and r epor t ed aboutpubl i c w or ks atC i t yC ounci l m eet i ngs . A ft er a tten d in g a tra in in g se ss io n th a t in c lu d e d in f o rm a tio n o n sta te s u n sh ine law co m p li an ce , L ind sey q u esti o n ed the C o u n cil ’s compl i ance w i t h t he open m eet i ngs r equi r ement ata number of publ i c meet i ngs . H e w as l at erfir ed. T he C our tdi ffe r ent i at ed G a rc e tti , and held t hat Lindsey ’s speech w as m ade “b oth as a ci t i zen a nd on a mat t erof publ i c conc ern. ” I d. at *5. T he opi ni on i n Li nds ey , h o w ev er, d o es n o t sug g est t h at P ri ce an d W arren ’s sp ee ch sh o u ld b e p rotec ted b ythe F ir st A m en d m en t as th e C o u rt expl ai ned t hat“t her e i s no ev idence L i nds ey ’ s j ob dut i es even arg u abl yi ncl uded s uns hi ne l aw compl i ance . ” I d. a t* 3

. As demonst r at ed above , t her e i s s uffi ci ent evi dence t hat Pr i ce a nd W ar r en’ s j obs i ncl uded r epor t i ng heal t h and saf et y pr obl ems at th e f ir in g ra n g e . 28 w hos e j ob m ighthave i ncl uded the s or tof m ai nt enanc e t hey per for m ed, orw ho m ighthave ha d r es pons i bi l i t yt o ens ur e t he s a f e ty o f th e ra n g e . W e r ecogni ze t hat gi vi ng s t at ement s t o t he St at e A udi t or w a s n o t p a rt o f

th e ir e v e ry d a yd u ties a n d th a t G a rc e tti l eave s o p e n th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t s p e e c h w ith in th e w o rk p lac e re latin g to non- j ob issues i s pr ot ect ed. H ow ever , Pr i ce e xpl ai ned t hathe s poke t o t he audi t or s beca us e “[ i ] tw as m ydut yt o s peak t o t he audi t or s . T he or dercame dow n fr om t he exec ut i ve off i ce of t he St at e of D el aw ar e, m eani ng t he G over nor ’ s offi ce. I am bound b yth a t o rd e r.” A lth o u g h th is s p e e c h w a s c o m p e lled b yth e ir empl oy er , t hi s fac tal one does n o t loc at e t he s peec h w i t hi n t he re a lm o f P ric e a n d W a rre n ’s jo b d u ties

. R a th e r, w h a t is29 di s pos i t i ve i s t hatt he pr i ors t at ement s of P ri ce a nd W arr en w ith in th e c h a in o f c o m m a n d p ro m p ted th e o rd e r to sp e a k w ith t he St at e A udi t or . B eca us e t he s peec h t hatm ot i vat ed t he or der w as w i t hi n t hei rj ob dut i es , t he re s pons i bi l i t y t o r es pond t o t he s u b s e q u e n t o rd e r w a s a ls o w ith in th e s c o p e o f th e ir d u tie s . B eca us e w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our tt hatPr i ce a nd W ar r en w er e ac t i ng pur s uant t o t hei rj ob dut i es w hen t heym ade th e ir c o m p lain ts u p th e c h a in o f c o m m a n d a n d g a v e th e ir re p o rts t o t he St at e A udi t or , w e need not exami ne w het hert hei rs peec h p a s s e s t h e r e m a i n d e ro f t h e t e s te s t a b l i s h e d b y P i cke r i ng a n d its p ro g e n y . See P i cke r i ng v. B d

. o f Educ. , 3 9 1 U

. S

. 5 6 3 (19 6 8 ); G i vhan , 439 U

. S. at410; C onni ck , 4 6 1 U .S . at 1 3 8 ; see al so C ur i nga v. C i t

y of C l ai r t on , 3 5 7 F

. 3 d 3 0 5 , 3 1 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). A s th e S e v e n th C ir c u it e x p la in e d , “ G a rc e tti req u ir es t h at be fo re a n a lyzi n g w h e th e r a n e m p lo y e e ’s s p e e c h is o f p u b lic c o n c e rn , a cou rtm ustdeter m i ne w hethert he em ploy ee w as speaking ‘as a c iti z e n ’ o r, b yc o n tra st, p u r s u a n t to h is d u ties a s a p u b lic empl oy ee. ” Sigsw ort h v. C i t y of Au rora , 487 F. 3d 506, 509- 10 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); s ee al s o B r am m er - H

oel t erv. Tw i n P eaks Ch a r t e r A c a d e my , --- F .3 d ---, 2 0 0 7 W L 2 0 0 7 5 4 6 , at * 5 (1 0 th C i r . 2007)

. I n m aki ng thei rvoi ces hear d up t he cha i n of comm and and r epor t i ng t o t he St at e A udi t orunderor der , Pr i ce and W ar r en s po k e pur s uantt o t hei rdut i es as governm ent e mp l o y e e s a tt h e F T U.
P ric e a n d W a rre n a lso a ss e rt th a t th e re lea se o f th e ir s t at ement s t o t he A udi t orbyt hei r at t or ney w as s peec h t hatw as30 notpur s uantt o t hei rj ob dut i es , and t her efor e notfor ecl os ed as a b a s i s f

o r r e c o v e r y b y G a rc e tti

. A s G a rc e tti expl ai ned, “[e ] m pl oy ees w ho m ake publ i c s t at ement s out s i de the cour s e of per fo r mi ng t he i rof

fi c i a l du t i e s r e t a i n s ome p os s i bi l i t yof Fi r st A m e n d m e n t p ro tec tio n b e c a u se th a t is th e k in d o f a c tiv ity engage d i n by ci t i zens w ho do notw or k fort he governm ent
. ” I d. at1961 ( ci t i ng w r i t i ng a l et t ert o a l ocal new s paperordi s cus s i ng p o lit ic s w it h a c o -w o rk e r a s e x a m p les o f sp e e c h th a t f

a lls “out s i de t he s cope of

offi ci al dut i es ”)

. T hey r ai s ed t hi s ar gum ent befor e t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n r egar d t o t hei r m ot i on t o amend t he c o m p la in t to c o n f

o rm to th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d a t tr ia l. See F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 15( b)

. A lthough t he r el eas e of thei rs t at ement s m ay h a v e b e e n o u tsid e th e sc o p e o f th e ir d u ties , a n d p e rh a p s e v e n in cont r avent i on of t hos e dut i es , w e need not r eac h t h is qu est i on beca us e t he D i s t r i ct C our t di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the m o ti o n to am en d

. S ee D ougl as v. O w ens , 50 F. 3d 1226, 1235 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( “W e r evi ew fo rabus e of di s cr et i on t he d istri ct co u rt ’s g ran ti n g o f lea v e to a m en d the c o m p lai n t. ”). M or eover , t he medi a s peec h t heor yw as notprese n ted t o t he D i st ri ctC ou rtas a defen se t o the m oti o n f o r j ud gm ent as a m at t erof l aw , butonl yi n conj un ct i on w i t h t hei rR ul e 15( b) m o tio n . See, e. g. , N

ew ar k Mor ni ng LedgerC o. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 3 9 F .2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 6 ) (“ W e g e n e ra llyre f u se to c o n s id e r i s s u e s th a t a re ra is e d f o r t h e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l.” ).
I n t hei rbr i ef t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tchal l engi ng t he mot i on forj udgm ent , Pr i ce an d W arr en ar gued t hatt hei rs peec h w as in terna l, b u t st il l pro tected af ter G a rc e tti b e c a u s e i t was not31 pur s uantt o t hei rj ob dut i es . T heyal s o ar gued t hatt heyhad not r ece i ve d n o t i c e o f

a n yd e f e n s e t h a tt h e i rs p e e c h t o t h e Aud i t or w a s n o t w ith in th e ir jo b d u ties b e c a u se , if th e yh a d , the yw o u ld h a v e sh o w n th a t “it w a s th e ir a tto rn e y s, w h o a lso sp o k e o u t to t he pr es s on t hei rbehal f af ter the f i r s tA udi t orm eet i ng, w ho arr ang ed the act ual m eet i ng w i th the A ud i t o r o n thei r cl i ents ’ be ha l f so t heirc l i e nt s c ou l d b l ow t he w hi s t l e on D SP w r ongdoi ng. ” Thei rbr i ef t o t he D i s t r i ct C our tal s o al l eged that their “ s pe e c h t o the Audi t or w a s th e m e a n s o f re sp o n d in g to [t he] gag or der ; r es pondi ng t o t he def amat or yat t ack on pl aint i ffs ; and of i nfor m i ng t he publ i c of gove r nm ent al m i s m anage m entand cor rupt i on t hr ough t he A udi t orand the m edi a. ” ( emphasi s added)

. T h ey concl uded that“pl ai nt i ffs engag e d i n p r o t e c t e d s p e e c h whe n t h e yr a i s e d t h e i rh e a l t h and safet ycon cerns t o the Stat e Audi t or .” (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).
W e r ecogni ze t hat t he par t i es di d nothave the bene fi tof t he G a rc e tti o p in io n a t th e tim e o f tr ia l. See N

or th R i verI

ns . C o. v. C IG N A R ei ns ur ance Co. , 5 2 F

. 3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 1 8 n . 3 9 (3d C ir

. 1995) ( “[W ] her e a pr evi ous l yi gnor ed l egal t heor yt akes on new im p o rta n c e d u e to a n in ter v e n in g d e v e lo p m e n t in th e law , itis appr opr i at e t o exer ci s e di s cr et i on t o al l ow a part yt o r evi ve t hat t heor y . ” ( i nt er nal ci t at i o ns om i t t ed) )

. H ow ever , Pr i ce a nd W ar r en di d notas k t he D i s t r i ctC our t fo r a par t i al new t r i al on th e g r o u n d th a t G a rc e tti had cha nged t he l egal l ands cape , p u rs u a n t to R u le 5 9 (a ). See F ED
. R C IV
. P. 59( a) ( “A new t r i al m aybe gr ant ed t o al l oranyof t he par t i es and o n al l orpar tof t he i s s ues . . . for any of t he r eas ons for w hi ch new t r i al s h ave32 her et ofor e bee n gr ant ed in act i ons atl aw i n t he cour t s of the U n ited S tate s... .”); P ry e r v . C .O . 3 S la v ic , 251 F. 3d 448, 454 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). In stead , they req u ested an am en d m en t t o co n fo rm th e c o m p lain t to th e e v id e n c e . T h e D is tr ict C o u rt c o rre c tly d e n ied th a t re q u e st.
Pr i ce and W ar r en di d notm eett he r equi r ement s foran amendm entpur s uantt o R ul e 15(b) , w hi ch al l ow s amendm entof pl eadi ngs i f t he cl ai m w as t r i ed byt he expr es s ori m pl i ed c on s e ntof

t he pa r t i e s . The r e c or d mak e s c l e a rt hatt he D SP d e f e n d a n ts d id n o t g iv e th e ir e x p re ss c o n se n t. In o rd e r to a sc e rta in w h e th e r th e yg a v e im p lie d c o n se n t, w e lo o k to “w het hert he par t i es r ecogni zed t hatt he unpl eade d i s s ue ent er ed t h e c a s e a t t r i a l , whe t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t s u p p o r t s t he unpl ead ed i s s ue w as i nt r oduced a tt r i al w i t houtobj ect i on, and w het hera fi ndi ng of t r i al bycons ent pr ej udi ced the oppos i ng par t y ’ s oppor tuni t y to r es pond. ” D ougl as , 50 F. 3d at1236 ( quot i ng P or t is v. F irstN at ’ lB ank , 3 4 F .3 d 3 2 5 , 3 3 2 (5 th C ir.1 9 9 4 )); s ee al

s o E vans P r ods

. C o. v. W es tA m . I ns . C o. , 736 F .2 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 4 ) (“ T h e p rim a r y co n sid e ra tio n in det er m i ni ng w het herl eave t o amend unde r Fed. R

. C i v. P. 15( b) s houl d be gr ant ed i s pr ej udi ce t o t he oppos i ng par t y . T he pr i nci pal t es t forpr ej udi ce i n s uch s i tuat i ons i s w hethert he o p p o sin g p a rtyw a s d e n ied a f a ir o p p o rtu n ityto d e f

e n d a n d to offe raddi t i onal evi dence on t hatdi ffe r entt heo ry . ” ( ci t at i on o m itte d ))

. Pr i c e a n d W a r r e n i d e n t i f ya M a y1 4 , 2 0 0 4 n e ws paperT h e f o llo w in g sid e b a r c o llo q u yis illu stra tiv e : 9 Th e Cou r t : W h a ta r e y o u o f f e r i n g ? Mr

. S

. Ne u b e r g e r : T he fact t hat t he FT U , t hat th e

condi t i ons att he FT U w er e al l over t he medi a i n t he begi nning of 20 0 4

. . . . I a m no to f f e r i n g , f or ex am p le, C ap tai n [G reg ] W arren ’s quot e t hatt he FT U w as , quot e, t he ab sol ut e epi t om e of a pr oj ectfr om hel l s i nce i t s ver yi ncept i on, end quot e – C apt ai n W arr en ca n t es t i fy aboutt hat i n a coupl e of da y s w hen h e is in h e re .... M r. E l l i s: If th a t is th e c a se , it is re a lly

m i s l eadi ng, becaus e t he evi dence 33 a rticle th a t in d ica tes th a t th e ir c o u n se l re a d th e ir sta tem e n ts verba ti m t o t he D el aw ar e St at e N ew s , and poi ntt o t r i al t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he ar t i cl e as s uppor tfort he unpl eade d i s s ue. A dm i t t ed w i t houtobj ect i on, t he new s paperar t i cl e w as r el evantt o and ad m it ted forthe purpos e of pr ovi ng Pr i ce a nd W a rre n ’s th e o ryo f

re talia tio n a n d th e ir d e f a m a tio n c laim . T h e ir at t or ney expl ai ned i n a pr offe rt o t he D i s t r i ctC our t“w hyI am offe r i ng t hi s , ” i

. e. , t hatt he ar t i cl e “go es t o t he mot i ve of the defe ndant s t o r et al i at e. ” H e di d notar gue t he pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he a rticle m ig h t sh o w th a t P ric e a n d W a rre n u se d th e ir a tto rn e yto t ake thei r ot herw i se i nternal speech pu bli c. Indeed , i n respon se t o conce r ns r ai s e d b yo p p o s i n g couns el , he di s cl ai m ed al t oget her anyconnec t i on hi s cl i ent s had w i t h t he ar t i cl e. 9w oul d m ake i ts eem l i ke t hes e t hr ee p eo p le w ere resp o n sible fo r w h at’s in th e p a p e r . T h a t is re a lly m i s l eadi ng beca us e i t ’ s nott he c a s e . T h e Co u r t : T hat is a co n ce rn, the co n ce rn

o u tlin e d b yM r. E llis

. M r . T. Neu b e r g e r : I w i l l be happyt o have C or por al

[ W a yn e ] W a rre n tes tify th a t th e re is o v e rla p in th e su b

jec t m a tter, b u t it w a sn ’t h im sp e a k in gto th e m e d ia and gi vi ng th em this i nf or m at i on . [emphasi s added] * * * M r . T. Neu b e r g e r : I think w e ar e mi s s i ng s om et hi ng

th a t w e a re s a y in g o n m o tiv a tio n . ... T hi s i s a bac k d rop of pr es s ur e and conce r n aboutt he r ange, w hi ch, even i f t hatpr es s ur e i s n o t t al ki ng aboutour cl i ent s , i t i s t al ki ng about t he fa ctt hat t he st at e has a br okendow n fac i l i t y . A nd w e ar e s ay i ng th a t th e m o ti v e to re talia te is be c a us e a l l t hi s i s go i ng pu bl i c . So anynew s s t or yof any natur e about t he r ange cont r i but es . . . t o a mot i ve t o r e t a l i a t e . I t d o e s n ’ t h a v e t o be aboutourguy s . . . . Si m pl y t he [f act t hatt he] r ange i s now bei ng 34c o v e re d a g a in [ b yth e n e w s m e d ia sh o w s th e d ef

en d an ts’ d ispleasu re ab o u t th e p u b li cit y ]. * * * T h e Co u r t : A l bei t thes e p arti cu lar pl ai nt i ffs

w ere n o t th e so u rce -- M r. T . N e u b e rg e r: N o . I n di r ectexami nat i on of W arr en, t he pl ai nt i ffs i nt r oduced the n e w s a rticle in th e f

o llo w in g m a n n e r: Q

. W h a t w e re y o u c o n c e rn e d a b o u t? A

. B ei ng bl amed fort he dow nfal l of t he oper at i on [at the F T U ]. Q. D o y ou r eca l l s e e i n g a n yn e ws me d i a c o v er age dis cussi ng y ou r m eet i ng s w i t h the aud i t ors? A

. Y es. Q

. D o y ou r eca l l w hat new s paper s t hatcover age w as i n? A

. I bel i eve i tw as i n both t he N ew s J our nal and t he S t at e N ew s. Fol l ow i ng t hi s excha nge, W arr en i dent i fi ed t he headl i ne of t he ar t i cl e i n w hi ch t hei rl aw y er ’ s r eadi ng of t hei rs t at ement s w as re p o rte d. W arr en d i d n ot r efer t o the ar t i cl e again i n h is tes tim o n y . S e v e ra l o th e r re f e re n c e s w e re m a d e to th e a rticle dur i ng t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ cas e, al l i n the cont extof s how i ng t he a n im o s ity o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts to w a rd P ri c e a n d W a rr e n .

35 T he s ol e occ as i on on w hi ch i t i s even a r guabl e t hatPr i ce36 a n d W a rre n in tro d u c e d u n c h a llen g e d e v id e n c e o f th e ir m e d ia sp e e c h th e o ryw a s d u rin g th e d ire c t ex a m in a tio n o f M a jo r D a v id B ay l or , w hi ch ca m e af t ert he pl ai nt i ffs’ ex p l anat i on t hatt he art i cl e w as evi den ce of m oti vati on for r et al i at i on . P l ai nti ffs’ counsel a s ked B ay l ori f i tw as cor r ect“t hatbot h L i eut enant C ol onel M acLei s h and C ol onel C haff i nch bec ame angr yabout t he new s paperr epor t i ng on s t at ement s m yo ffi ce ha d m ade on behal f of m y cl i ent s ?” B ay l or r es ponded t hat“[t ] her e w as a l evel of frus t r at i on, y es . ” The subs equent li n e o f i nqui r yfocus ed on t h e f ru s t r a t i o n o f

M a c L e i s h a n d Ch a f

f i n c h a b o u tt h e n e ws st o r ie s a n d th e ir a n g ryf e e lin g s to w a rd P ric e a n d W a rre n . T h is sin g le q u e stio n is in su f

f icie n t to sa tisf

y th e re q u ire m e n ts o f

R u le 1 5 (b ). See, e. g. , Far

f ar as v. C i t iz ens B ank and Trus tof C hi cago , 4 3 3 F

. 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 8 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ) (ho lding th a t the p lai n ti ff ’s admi ssion o n cross - exami nat i on i n an empl oy m ent di s cr i m i nat i on cas e t hats he di d notgo t o w or k r i ghtaw ayw as “nots uffi ci entt o demonst r at e t hatt he d ef en s e had r ai s ed t he is s u e o f f a ilu re to m itig a te ” ).
A s w e expl ai ned i n D ougl as , “an i s s ue has notbeen tr i ed byi m pli ed co nsent i f evidence rel evan tt o the n ew cl ai m i s al so r el evantt o t he cl ai m or i gi nal l y pl ed, beca us e t he def endantdoes nothave any not i ce t hat t he i m pl i ed cl ai m w as bei ng t r i ed. ” 50 F. 3d at1236. H avi ng di s cl ai m ed any at t empt t o i nt r oduce the ar t i cl e fort he purpos e of s how i ng t hatt heyw er e r es pons i bl e for t he s t at ement s o r the r el eas e t o t he pr es s , Pr i ce a nd W arr en c a n n o t n o w a ss e rt th a t th e y e n ter e d th e u n p lea d e d iss u e o f m e d ia s p e e c h in to th e tr ia l.37 N ordi d t he def

endant s i m pl i ci t l yagr ee to the i ncl us i on of t he unpl eade d i s s ue i n t hei rt es t i m ony . C haff i nch t es t i fi ed t hat “I w as n o t u p s e t that y o u r cli en ts w ere tal k ing to the au d it o rs b ec au se, l ike I sa id, w e w ere g o ing to co m p ly w ith the A u d it o r’s O ffi ce i n anyw ayt heyneeded to c om pl et e t hei ri nves t i gat i on. I w as notups ett hatt heyw er e t al ki ng t o t he audi t or s , no. I w as ups et t h a t i t was b r i n g i n g a n e g a t i v e l i g h t t o t h e Di v i s i o n of St at e Poli ce i n t he medi a. ” A l t hough Pr i ce a nd W arr en now po i n t t o Ch a f

f i n c h ’ s t e s t i mo n y a s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e D SP defe ndant s i m pl i edl y agr eed t hat t he i s s ue of s peech to the m ed ia w as bei ng t r i ed, C haff i nch di d nott es t i fyas t o how t he s t at ement s goti nt o t he medi a. B ot h he and M acLei s h expr es s ed t hei rdi s m ayatt he nega t i ve cov er age thatt he s i tuat i on att he F T U h a d re c e iv e d , b u t n e ith e r sta ted th a t th e yw e re u p se t w ith Pr i ce and W ar r en forgoi ng t o t he medi a vi a t hei rat t or neyand ci r cumvent i n g th e u n i v e r s al D SP orde rpr ohi bi t i ng offi cer s fr om ta lk in g to th e m e d ia w ith o u t a p p ro v a l.
T he fa ctt hatt her e w as no obj ect ion t o t he hea r s ay c o n tain e d in th e a rticle f u rth e r in d ica tes th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts under s t ood t he i nt r oduct i on of t he ar t i cl e and t esti m o ny r egar di ng i t to relat e onl yt o t he adve r s e ac t i on pr ong of Pr i ce and W ar r en’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m . T he D SP defendant s di d not i m pl i ci t l ycons entt o t he t r i al of a cl aim t hatPr i ce a nd W arr en e n g a g e d in p ro tec ted sp e e c h to th e m e d ia. A c c o rd in g ly , th e irW e not e t hat , al t hough P ri ce an d W arr en’ s R ul e 15( b) 10 m ot i on fai l s , t heym ayhave ha d a val i d cl ai m underR ul e 59( a) orR ul e 60( b) ( 6) on t he bas i s of t he cha nged l egal l andsca pe af ter G a rc e tti

. See, e. g. , St ant on by Brooks v. A s t r a P har m a. P r ods

. , I nc. , 718 F. 2d 553, 557, 576 ( 3d C i r . 1983) ( confi r m i ng t hat a change i n t he l aw i s an appr opr i at e bas i s fora part i al r etrial); F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) ( “ On mo t i o n a n d u p o n s u c h t e r ms as ar e j us t , t he cour tm ayr el i eve a par t yora par t y ’ s l egal re p re s e n ta tiv e f

ro m a f in a l ju d g m e n t, o rd e r, o r p ro c e e d in g f o r ... any ot her r eas on j us t i fy i ng r el i ef fr om t he oper at i o n o f t he ju d g m e n t.”); buts ee Agost i n i v. Fel t on , 521 U

. S. 203, 239 ( 1997) ( “I nt er veni ng devel opm ent s i n t he l aw byt hemsel ves r ar el ycons t i tut e t he extr aor di nar yci r cumst ance s r equi r ed for re lief u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )(6 )... .”). H o w e v e r, P ric e a n d W a rre n d id not s eek a par t i al r e- t r i al on t he i s s ue of medi a s peec h orr el i ef f ro m th e ju d g m e n t u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ). T h e yso u g h t o n ly re in s ta te m e n t o f

th e v e rd ic t o r d e f

a u lt ju d g m e n t a s re lie f

. A l t hough w e ar e mi ndful t hatR ul e 54( c) r equi r es t hat

“ e v e ry f in a l ju d g m e n t s h a ll g ra n t th e re lief to w h ich th e p a rtyin w hos e fa vor it is ren der ed i s ent i t l ed, even i f t he par t yhas not demanded s uch r el i ef i n t he par t y ’ s pl eadi ngs , ” w e not e t hatt he rul e “a ddr es s es and cur es a l i m i t ed form al pr obl em. I t is not des i gned t o al l ow pl ai nt i ffs t o r ecove rforcl ai m s t heynever al l eged. ” U

SX C orp. v. B a rnha rt , 3 9 5 F

. 3 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). T h u s , w e a re u n a b le to a ss ist P ric e a n d W a rre n in s al vagi ng t hei rpot ent i al l ym er i t o r i ous , butunpl eade d and u n tr ie d , c la im s . 38 m oti on un der R ule 15(b) fai l s on the m eri t s. 1039 V.
Pr i ce a nd W arr en’ s Pet i t i on C l aus e cl ai m d oes not w i t hs t and s cru ti n y . T hei rcompl ai nt s w i t hi n t he cha i n of comm and w er e not di r ect ed t o t he D SP as a g over nm ent al ag en cy , b u t r athe r w ere d ir ec ted to the D S P a s th e ir em p loy er. S u c h c o m p lain ts a re n o t p e tit io n in g a c tiv it y e n tit led to p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t.
T he hol di ng i n G a rc e tti con t rol s our analy si s of t he F i rs t A m e n d m e n t sp e e c h c la im s . U n d e r th e ru le e sta b lish e d in G a rc e tti , Pr i ce a nd W arr en s poke outabout t he m ai nt enanc e of t he b ull ett ra p “ p u rs uan tt o thei r offi ci al du t i es. ” F i rs t A m endment pr o tect i on ext ends t o gover nm entempl oy ees s peaki ng as ci t i zens , buti tdoes notext end to w o rke r s w ho s peak i n the cour s e of f ul fi l l i ng t hei rempl oy m ent re sp o n sib ili ties . P ric e a n d W a rre n w e re sp e a k in g p u rsu a n t to t h e i re mp l o yme n td u t i e s wh e n t h e yma d e t h e i rc o n c e r n s k n o wn t hr ough t he cha in o f comm and and w hen t heys poke w i t h t he S tat e A u d it o r. A c co rdin g ly , their F ir st A m en d m en t cl aim s are f o re c lo s e d

. T he D i s t r i ct C our t di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng P ri c e a n d W a rr e n ’s m o tio n u n d e r R u le 1 5 (b ).
W e w ill a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
.We q uo te th is l anguag e c ha

ra c te ri zingthema

jority op ini on in 11 San Filippo from J udg e B ecker’s c oncurring a nd dissenting opinion in that case

. 40 GR E ENB E R G, C i rc u i tJu d ge, co n curr i n g.

Though Iagreewith the result the majority rea ches on Price ’s and W arren’s pe tition claim, Iwrite sepa rate ly to note my

hesitation in finding that their e-mail complaints up the chain of command (a s dis tin guis he d f

ro m th e ir c omm un ic atio ns to t

heStateAu dit or), did not constitute petitioni ng activity

. Rather, I would assume, arguendo, that the e- mails were petitioning ac tivity , but conclude that the Supreme Court’s opini o nin Garc etti v. Ceballos, 126 S. C t. 1951, 19 60 (2 00 6) , b arre d th e ir

pe tit ion ingc la im g iven that the y se nt t he ir complaints up the ch ai n of command “pursuant to their off icial duties.” See ma

jority opinion at 25. The majority

find s that bec ause Price ’s and Warren’s “complaints within the ch ain of command werenot directe d to the DSP a s a g ov e rnme ntal a g e nc y , but ra ther we re dire c te d to t

heDSP as their employer,” Price and Warren cannot seek solac e now in the Petition Clause. Majority opinion at 39; see also id. at 16 (noting Price a nd Warren “ appealed to their employer, which also happe ned to be a stateag ency, through informal channe ls”). In San Filippo v. B on g iov ann i, 3 0 F .3 d 4 24 , 44 9 (3 d Cir

. 19 94 ), wehe ld “ that a pu bli c employee is protected under thePetition C lause ag ainst retaliation for havin gfi le d a

pe tit ion

. . . a dd re ssi nga matter

of pure ly private concern.” We expl ained that the rea s o n fo r our c onclusion was

11In Connick, the Supreme Court held that a g overnme nt employee 12 who goes publi c with an employ ment dispute that is not a “matter of pu bli c c on c e rn ” do e s n ot h avefi rs t ame ndme nt i mmunit y a g a ins t su bs e qu e nt e mpl oye r dis c ipl ine . Conn ic k, 46 1 U .S. at 14 6, 10 3 S. Ct. at 1690. 41 “[t] he first amendment’ s petition clause imposes on the United States an oblig ation to have at least some channel open f or those who se ek redress fo r perceive d grieva nces. Through its incorporation of the f i r s tam e n dm e nt , th e f

o urt e e ntham e n dm e nt ’ s gu ar ant e e o f ‘ l i b e rty’ imp os e s th e sameob lig atio n o n th e state s. ” I d. at 44 2. Thus : [W]he n g ov e rnme nt–fe de ral or state–f or ma lly a do pts a mechanism for redre ss of those grieva nces f or which g ov e rnme nt i s a lle g e dly

a c c ounta ble , it wo uld se e m to un de rm inetheCon sti tution ’s vit al pur po se s to ho ld th ato n e wh o i ng o o d f a i thf i l e s anargu a

bly meritorious ‘petiti o n ’ invokingthat mecha nism may be disciplined for

such i nv o cation by

the ver y g overnme nt that in compliance with the pe tition c la us e ha s g iven the par tic ula r m e c ha nis m it s constitutional imprimatur. I d. Additi o n ally , we distinguished retaliation claims based on spee ch, wh ic h a resu bje c t to theru leann ounc e d b y theSup re meCou

rt in Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 103 S.Ct

. 1684, 1690 (1983), 12 as follows: “[W] hen one f iles a ‘pe tition’ one is not appealing ove r g overnme nt’s head to the g eneral citiz enry : when one f iles a ‘pe tition’ on e is a dd

re ssi ngg ov e rnme nt a

nd a skingg ov e rnme nt to f

ix wh at, alleg edly , g overnme nt has broken or has failed in its duty to repair.”This discussion a ssumes that e-mail wa s the ty pical mea ns by 13 which their employer expected Price and Warren – as well a s o ther DSP employees – to c ommunicate their c oncer ns to it. Notably , although we obse rved in Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 14 455 F. 3 d225, 242 n.24 (3d Cir. 2006), that “[w]e have ne ver he ld . 42 San Filippo, 30 F.3d at 442. No tw ith sta

ndingthe a

bo ve , bo th San F ilipp o and thema jority conc ed e that there also exist “less formal mec hanisms by which a petition may be made ,” although they “may occa sion a lesser de gree of c on sti tution a l prote c tio n th an th e ir fo rm a l c ounterp art s. ” Ma jority opinion at 14; see also McD onald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 480, 105 S.Ct . 2787, 2788 (1985 ) (r ecognizing le tters sent to President of United States by

defe ndant cha

rg ed with def

amingplain t iff as petitions). The majority conclude s, however, that bec ause Priceand War ren, in t he ir c a pacity a s p ub lic e mpl oye e s, “ a pp e a le d to the ir e mpl oye r, wh ic h a lso ha

ppe ne d to bea

statea g e nc y ,”the ir

e -m a ils cannot c onstitut e petitioning a ctivity

. Majority opinion ty pescript at 16. Ifind the result rea ched somewhat troubling . Specifically , g iven our b ro a d c ha

ra c te ri zation

of a pu bli c e mpl oye e ’s ri ght to p e tit ion in San F ilipp o, it i s unc le ar t o mewhy Pric e ’s and

War ren’ s c omp la int s wo uld c on sti tu te pe tit ion inga c tiv ity if they ha d c onta c te d “ a

state a g e nc y qu a

a g e n c y , ” i d

. , r ath e r

th anth e s am ea g e n c y

a s th e ir e mp lo ye r . In d e e d , if

in b o th c a s e s p lainti f

f s ar e a s k in gg o v e r

nme nt t o fi xwh ati t“h as b ro k eno r h as fa i l edi ni t s d uty t o re p ai r” thro u gh means the g overnme nt has dee med ac cepta ble, San Filippo, 30 F.3d 13 at 442, why

sh o u l d th e activity

be stripped of

its constitut ional protec tion in one instance but not the other? 14. . a report of a supe rior’s misconduc t to a leg islative body when the leg islative body

is also the reporter’s e mployer c onstitut es ‘petitioning a ctivity ,’” so f ar as I am awa re w e similarly

never have held to the contra

ry . Obviously , a public employee can pe tition hi s g overnme ntal 15 employer reg ardinga matter completely

unrelated to his employ

ment and be in the p o s ition of any other pe titioner for c onstitut ional purposes. B ut that situation i s not present he re. 43 We can avoid the n ee d to resolve the dif ficult question of whether a publi c employee ever

can “petition” the g overnme nt when th e go v ernm enti s al s o th e p u b l i c e mp l o yee ’s emp l o yer b y l o o k i n g, i n s t e a d , t o th e S u

p r e m e C o urt ’ s o p i n i o ni nG ar c e tt i v . C eb a l l o s . In 15 Garcetti, the SupremeCourt held that when public employees spe ak “pursua nt to their officia l duties, th e emp loyees a re not spea

king a s citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constituti on does not ins ulatethe ir c omm

un ic atio ns from em

plo ye r dis c ipl ine .” 12 6 S. Ct. at 1960. While the S up re m e Court did not addre ss the question of whether the rule it announce d in Garcetti applies to First Amendme nt re ta liatio n c la ims ba se d o n a pu bli c e mpl oye e ’s pe tit ion inga c tiv iti e s, as distinguished f

rom his spe ech, there is g ood rea son to believe that it d oe s. To be sure , “[t] he petition clauseof the first amendment wa s not intended to be a de ad letter –or a grac eful but re dundant appendag e of the clauses guara nteeingfre edom of spee ch and press.” San Filipp o , 3 0 F. 3 d at 442. Rather, theright to petition “is an assura nce of a par ticular freedom of

ex pression,” Mc Donald, 472 U.S. at 482, 105 S. Ct . at 2789, and “ has a pe digree independent of–and substanti al l y more a ncient-tha n the fre edoms of spee ch and44 pr e ss. ” San F ili pp o, 30 F .3 d at 44 3. No ne the le ss, “ [t]heri ght t o petition is cu t fr om the same c loth as the other guara ntees of that Amendment.” Mc Donald, 472 U.S. at 482, 105 S. Ct. at 2789. To thi s e nd , th e Sup re meCourt ha s p la inly

re c ognize d th at: Th e Pe tit ion Cla

us e . . . wa s ins pire d by th e same ideals of liber

ty and democ rac y

that g ave us the fre e do ms t o spe ak, pu

bli sh , an d ass e mbl e . . . . Th e se First Amendment rights are insepara ble . . . and there is no sound basis for granting greater c onstitut ional protec tion to st atements madein a petit i o n. . . than oth e r F ir st Ame ndme nt e xpre ssi on s. I d. at 485, 105 S. Ct. at 2791 (internal c itations omi tted); see also San Filippo, 30 F.3d at 450 (B ecker, J ., concur ringand dissenting ) (noting “even if all petitions now constitute speech ( gi v en the broad interpre tat i on the Supreme Court ha s g iven to speec h), I do not see why it m att e rs tha

t th e gua ra nte e s o ve rl a

p” ). Gi ve n th e a

bo ve , it c e rt a inly wo uld bepla us ibl e fo r us to be lie vethat, i f p re se nte d w ith the question, the Court is likely to f ind that when public emp l o y ees p et i t ion the g overnme nt pursuant to their off icial duties, the Constitution does not i n sulate such pe titions from employer discipline. See Ga

rce tti, 126 S . Ct. at 1960; see also D’Ang elo v. Sc h o o l B d

. o f

Po lk Co unty, F la

. , N o . 0 6

- 1 3 5 8 2 , F

. 3 d , 2 0 0 7 WL 21 89 09 9, at *7 ( 11 th Cir . Aug . 1 , 2 00 7) (n oti ngthat, a ft e r G arc e tti , the cour t mu s t ask “whether

the public employee ma de his petition b o th o n a matt e r o f p u

b li c c o n c e r

n an d a s a c itiz e n ” and “[i]f the pe tit ion fails thi s thre sh old

qu e sti on , it

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

heF ir st Amendment”)

.45 Assuming, a

rguendo, that Price and Warren’s complaints up the chain o f co m mand did constitute petitioning ac tivity , beca use I be lie vethat G arc e ttia

pp lie s to the ir

c la im, Isim ila

rly wo uld up ho ld the district court’s order grantingjudgme nt ag ainst them as a matter of law fo r thi s re a so n. F or there a so ns thema jority tho ughtf ully se ts fo rt h, it s e e ms pl a in t

hat Pric e and

War ren a c te d “purs ua

nt t o th e ir of fi c ia l dutie s, ” Ga

rc e tti , 1 26 S. Ct . at 19 60 , in vo ic ingthe ir c omp la int s u

p th e c hain o f c omm and . A c c ordin g ly , the ir c omp la int s c ann o tb e th e b a s i s un d e rl yi n ga F i r s tAm e n dm e ntc l a i ma g a ins t defe ndants.46 PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge, concurr i ng: I jo in th e o p in io n a n d ju d g m e n t o f th e c o u rt.
T he opi ni on expl ai ns w i t h pr eci s i on t hatthe fr ee s peec h aspect (as dis t i nct fr om t he P et i t i on C l ause aspect ) of t his case deal i ng w i t h t he r i ght s of publ i c em pl oy ees i s s quar el ygover ned by t he S upr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n G ar cet t i v. C ebal l os ,

- - - U

. S. - - - - , 126 S. C t
. 1951 ( 2006) : “The r es ul tr equi r ed by G a rc e tti il lustrat es h o w that o p inion n arro w ed the C o u rt ’s j ur i s prudence i n t he ar ea of empl oy ee s peec h. A l t hough under G a rc e tti an em p loy ee’s ri g h t t o p rotest m att ers o f p u b li c c o n ce rn is n o t a ut om at i cal l yfor fei t ed byhi s choi ce of a w or kpl ace forum , t hat ri gh t i s l i m i t ed. ” A s t he court furt he r o b se rves, u n d er G a rc e tti , “t he ‘ cont r ol li n g fac t or ’ i n r emovi ng s peec h fr om t he Fi r s tA m endment [i s ] t hatt he expr es s i ons w er e made pur s uantt o empl oy m entdut i es . ” I n t he ca se at b ar , i ti s not s urpr i s i ng t hatr epo rt s m ade byC orpor al B

. K ur tPr i ce a nd C orpor al W ayne W arr en w i t hi n t he cha i n of comm and o f t he D e law a re S tate P o lic e w e re re g a rd e d a s “ m a d e p u rsu a n t to empl oy m entdut i es . ” L es s cl ear i s t hat t he s t at ement s Pr i ce a nd W ar r en made t o t he St at e A udi t or

— s t at em ent s or der ed t o be m ade t o a hi gh s t at e off i ci al bey ond t he cha i n of s t at e pol i ce co m m an d

— w ere p art of their em p loy m en t du ti es. A s the co u rt not es , “gi vi ng s t at ement s t o t he St at e A udi t or w as notpar tof [appe l l ant s ’ ] every day dut i es . ” B ut , gi ven t he s t at ement s Pr i ce and W ar r en had mad e to theirs eni oroffi cer s , i tw as notcl ear er r orfort he D i s t r i ct C our t t o fi nd t hatt he di r ect i ve t o Pr i ce a nd47 W arr en t o ai d t he St at e A udi t or ’ s i nqui r ybr oadene d t he s cope o f th eir em p loy m en t d u tie s . See G us t af s on v. Jones , 290 F. 3d 8 9 5 , 9 0 6 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ).
It m a yb e e x p e c ted th a t G a rc e ttiw ill , to s o m e e x ten t, i nhi bi tfede r al j ud ici al m i cr om anagi ng of publ i c empl oy m ent p ra c tic e s. It a lso m a yb e e x p e c ted th a t G a rc e tti wi l l , t o s o me e x ten t, i n h ib it d iss e m in a tio n o f in f o rm a tio n o f a rg u a b le p u b lic i nt er es taboutt he oper at i ons of gover nm ent agenc i es . H ow t he b a l a nc e wi l l b e s t ru c k ma yb e e x p e c t e d t o d e p e n d , t o s o me e x ten t, on th e n u a n c e d ju d g m e n ts o f p u b lic e m p lo y e e s a n d th e ir su p e rio rs, a n d a lso o f c o u rts, o n th e sc o p e o f a p u b lic e m p lo y e e ’s e m p lo y m e n t d u tie s . C om pa re G a rc e tti , 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 1 9 6 1

– 6 2 , w ith i d. a t 1 9 6 3 (S te v e n s , J ., d is s e n tin g ), and i d. at 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 6 8 (S o u te r, J ., d is s e n tin g ).