2008 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 2-12-2008 

# M ee n an v . H arri son P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-2657

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M e e n an v . H arri s on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1621. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1621H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe * N i nth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_______________ N o. 06- 2657

_______________ T P R. S HAWN S . M E E NAN; BR E NDAL E E M E E NAN, A p p e llan ts

v. C A R L M . H A R R IS O N , J R ., D A N IE L S IS T , R O B E R T S E B A S T IA N E L L I, J O H N R IC E , T H O M A S T R A IS T E R ,

KA THLEEN SERAFI N an d RO BERT J . FOO SE,

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s tr i ctC our tN o. : 3: 03- C V - 01300 D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Fr i day , M ay24, 2007 Be f o r e : BA RR Y, CH AGAR E S , a n d T AS HI M A, C i r cui tJudges . * ( Fi l ed: February12, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________________2

T A S H IM A , C i r cui tJudge . Shaw n M eena n, a tr ooperw i th the Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce ( “PSP”) , and B re n d a lee M e e n a n , h is w if e , ap p e a l th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in th e ir 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n in f a v o r o f th e d e f e n d a n ts. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a f f i r m. I. T h e M e e n a n s m e t w ith o f f icia ls a t M o n sig n o r M c H u g h E lem e n tar yS c h o o l, i ncl udi ng i t s pr i nci pal , defe ndantK athl een Ser afi n, t o di s cus s the al l eged mi s conductof thei rs on’ s t eac her . U ns at i s fi ed w i th the s chool offi ci al s ’ r es pons e, Shaw n M eena n in iti a ted a c rim in a l in v e stig a tio n o f th e tea c h e r b yre p o rtin g th e a lleg e d p ro b lem s w ith h is s on’ s t eac hert o t he PSP. PSP defe ndantR obertSebas t i anel l i conduct ed the in v e s tig a tio n . A f ter so m e in v e stig a tio n , S e b a stia n e lli in f o rm e d S h a w n M e e n a n th a t o th e r p a re n ts w er e notcooper at i ng w i th t he i nves t i gat i on and thathe found no e vi dence of i l l egal act i vi ty . Shor t l yaft ert al ki ng t o M eena n, Sebas t i anel l i r ece i ved a phone cal l fr om one of th e p a re n ts, c o m p lain in g th a t M e e n a n w a s h a ra ss in g h e r f o r h e r u n w ill in g n e ss to cooper at e i n t he i nves t i gat i on. She t ol d Sebas t i anel l i thatM eena n had t el ephoned he rand sh o u ted a t h e r b e c a u se sh e w o u ld n o t co o p e ra te w ith th e in v e stig a tio n . S e b a stia n e lli not i fi ed hi s s upervi s or , defe ndantD ani el Si s t , w ho then i ni t i at ed an i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on3

to d e ter m in e if

M e e n a n h a d im p ro p e rlyin ter f e re d w ith S e b a stia n e lli ’s in v e stig a tio n in vi ol at i on of PSP r egul at i ons . A ft erM eena n l earned thathe w as bei ng i nves t i gat ed, he cont act ed a t el evi s i on r eport erw i th hi s compl ai nt s aboutthe t eac her , the i nves t i gat i on, and the otherpar ent s . PSP L i eut enantSt acySchm i dtdet erm i ned thatM eena n w as s ubj ectt o di s ci pl i ne forhi s conduct , and def endantC ar l H arr i s on as s es s ed a pe nal tyof a f o rt y -d a ys u s p e n s io n w ith o u t p a ya n d a n in tr a tr o o p tr a n s f e r. T h e M e e n a n s th e n c o m m e n c e d th is a c tio n , alle g in g th a t S e ra f in , S e b a stia n e lli , S ist, and PSP t r ooperJ ohn R i ce c ons pi r ed t o s hi ftthe foc us of the i nves t i gat i on aw ayfr om t he t eac herand ont o Shaw n M eena n. T heyfur theral l eged thatthe i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on and di s ci pl i naryact i on t aken a gai ns tShaw n M eena n cons t i tut ed uncons t i tut i onal r et al i at i on forhi s s peaki ng outaboutthe al l eged t eac herm i s conduct . T heyal s o al l eged thatthe defe ndant s vi ol at ed the due pr oces s cl aus e of the Four t eenth A m endmentbyi nt er fer i ng w i th the i rpa r e nt a l r i gh t s . I n the i ra mend e d c ompl a i nt , the M e e na ns a l s o a l l e ge d tha tPSP tr ooper s R obertFoose and Thom as T r ai s t erhar as s ed Shaw n M eena n i n r et al i at i on for f ili n g th is la w su it. T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entforal l defe ndant s on eac h of the M eena ns ’ cl ai m s . I tconcl uded thatthe M eena ns had off er ed no evi dence thatthe defe ndant s i nt er fer ed w i th t hei rfami l i al r el at i ons hi ps . I tdet erm i ned thatB r endal ee M e e na n c ou l d n otr a i s e c l a i ms o f r e t a l i a t i on be c a us e s he w a s ne ve re mpl oy e d b ythe PSP a n d h e ld th a t, alth o u g h S h a w n M e e n a n ’s s p e e c h w a s p ro tec ted b yth e F irst A m e n d m e n t,4

he had f ai l ed t o s ubm i tevi dence s how i ng thathi s s peec h w as a mot i vat i ng fac t ori n the al l egedl yr et al i at oryconduct . Fi nal l y , the di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatbeca us e the M eena ns fai l ed t o pr ovi de evi dence demonstr at i ng a vi ol at i on of thei rcons t i tut i onal r i ght s , the def

endant s w er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton the cons pi r acycl ai m s . T he M e e n a n s tim e lya p p e a led , an d w e n o w a f f irm th e d istric t co u rt. II. W e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o v e r th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t, c o n s tru in g th e f

a c ts in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . Moor e v. C i t y of P h ila d e lp h ia , 4 6 1 F .3 d 3 3 1 , 3 4 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te if

“ th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an d . . . the m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . W her e the nonmovi ng partyhas t he b u rd e n o f

p ro o f , the m o v in g p a rtym a yp re v a il b yp o in tin g o u t th a t “th e n o n m o v in g p a rty has fai l ed t o m ake a s uffi ci ents how i ng of an e s s ent i al el ementof hercas e. ” C el ot ex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 4 7 7 U . S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 3 (19 8 6 ). T h e n o n m o v ing p artym ayn o t r elyu p o n b are assert i on s or conclusoryal l egati on s, bu tm ustadd uce ev i den ce est abli shi ng that there i s a g e n u in e f

a c tu a l d is p u te f

o r t ri a l. F i r em an’s I

ns . C o. v. D uFr es ne , 676 F. 2d 965, 969 ( 3d C i r . 1982) . W e mayaff i r m the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton anygr ound s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . Tours cherv. McC ul l ough , 1 8 4 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). III . Sect i on 1983 “es t abl i s hes a fe der al r emedyagai ns ta per s on w ho, act i ng underT h e M e e n a n s c ite a n u m b e r o f c a se s, m o st o f

w h ich c e n ter u p o n sta te 1 t erm i nat i on of the par ent - chi l d r el at i ons hi p orthe r emoval of par entorchi l d fr om the f a m ily h o m e . See, e. g. , Sant os ky v . Kr am er , 4 5 5 U .S . 7 4 5 (1 9 8 2 ); Q u illo in v . W a lco tt , 4 3 4 U .S . 2 4 6 (1 9 7 8 ); S ta n ley v . Ill in o is , 4 0 5 U .S . 6 4 5 (1 9 7 2 ); C ro ft , 1 0 3 F .3 d 1 1 2 3 . T hese cases shed li t t l e l i gh ton the is sues befo re us. 5 col orof s t at e l aw , depr i ves anotherof cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” B ur el la v. C i t y of P h ila d e lp h ia , 501 F. 3d 134, 139 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e § 1983 ca s e, a pl ai nt i ff musts how that( 1) the d e f e n d a n t d e p ri v e d h e r o f

a f e d e ra l r ig h t ( 2 ) w h ile a c tin g u n d e r c o lo r o f s ta te la w . I

d. A . T h e D u e P r o c e ss C la im T h e M ee n an s arg u e tha t def en d an ts’ all eg ed fa il u re to c o n d u ct a sa ti sfa ctory i nves t i gat i on of the t eac herand the PSP i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on of Shaw n M eena n i nfr i nged upon thei rFour t eenth A m endmentr i ghtt o be fr ee f r om governm ent al i nt er fer ence i n t hei rfami l yr el at i ons hi ps unl es s the governm entadher es t o pr ocedur al and subst anti ve d ue p rocess requi rem ents . See, e. g. , C r of tv. W es tm or eland C ount

y C hi ldr en 1 & Y ou th S ervs. , 1 0 3 F . 3 d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 2 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). E v e n a c c e p tin g th e ir a lleg a tio n s a s tru e , the yf a il t o sh o w th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts ter m in a ted , atte m p ted to ter m in a te, o r o th e rw ise in ter f e re d w ith th e ir re latio n sh ip w ith thei rs on. T he def

endant s di d not , i n anyw ay , i nt er fer e w i th the M eena ns ’ r i ghtt o m ake d e c is io n s a b o u t th e irs o n ’s u p b ri n g in g o r e d u c a tio n . See T ro x e l v. G ra n v ill e , 530 U . S. 57, 7 2 (2 0 0 0 ); P i erce v. So c’y of Sis t ers , 268 U . S. 510, 534- 35 ( 1925) . T he M eena ns , of cour s e, r emai n fr ee t o t ake thei rs on outof the pr i vat e s chool he w as att endi ng or6

o th e rw ise d e a l w ith th e ir p e rc e iv e d p ro b lem s w ith th e c h ild ’s p riv a te s c h o o l. S im p lyp u t, the fa i l ur e t o i nves t i gat e al l eged i l l egal act i ons bya pr i vat e t eac herdoes noti n anyw ay a m o u n t to g o v e rn m e n ta l in te rf e re n c e w ith th e p a re n ta l r e la tio n s h ip . C f . D eShaney v. W i nn eba go C ou nty D ep’tof Soc. Servs. , 489 U . S. 189, 196 ( 1989) ( “[O ] urcas es have re c o g n ize d th a t th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se s g e n e ra llyc o n f e r n o a f f irm a tiv e rig h t to governm ent al ai d, even w her e s uch ai d m aybe nec es s aryt o s ecur e l i fe, l i berty , or pr opertyi nt er es t s of w hi ch the governm enti t s el f m aynotdepr i ve the i ndi vi dual . ”) . T he dis tri ctcou rtdid not err i n g rant i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent for defend ants on the M eenan s’ du e process cl ai m s. B. Th e F i r s t Ame n d me n t Re t a l i a t i o n Cl a i ms 1. B r endalee Meenan B ren d alee M ee n an co n tend s tha t th e d istri ct co u rterred w h en itg ran ted s u m m ary j udgm entforthe PSP defendant s on herFi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m . She ar gues that byret al i at i ng againstS haw n M eenan , the P S P defe nd ants w ere t aking acti on against herthr ough heras s oci at i on w i th herhus band. T he di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ygr ant ed su m m aryjud g m en t bec au se sh e is n o t and n ev er w as a stat e e m p loy ee , an d there fo re the re ca n b e n o em p loym en t r etali ati o n ag ains t her. 2. Shaw n Meenan a. R et al i at i on fors peaki ng t o the medi a Shaw n M eena n ar gues thatthe PSP defendant s r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m fors peaki ngI f thes e cr i t er i a ar e met , the def endant s m aythen r ebutthe cl ai m by 2 es t abl i s hi ng thattheyw oul d have t aken the s ame act i on i n the abs ence of the pr ot ect ed c o n d u c t. Hill , 4 5 5 F .3 d a t 2 4 1 n . 2 3 ; B aldas s ar e v. N ew Jer s ey , 250 F. 3d 188, 195 ( 3d C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . We do not reac h that stag e in this case. 7 outaboutthe i nves t i gat i on of hi s s on’ s t eac her . Fi r s t , he cont ends thatH arr i s on r et al i at ed agai ns thi m bytr ans ferr i ng and s us pendi ng hi m forfor tyday s w i thoutpay . M eena n arg u es th at S istretali ated ag ains t him b yinit iat ing an interna l i n v esti g ati o n into M ee n an ’s conduct . Fi nal l y , M eena n cont ends thatSebas t i anel l i r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m bys hi ft i ng the foc us of the i nves t i gat i on aw ayfr om the t eac herand ont o M eena n. T o p r e v a i l o n a F i r s tAm e n d me n tr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m, M e e n a n mu s tp r o v e two el ement s : “( 1) thatthe ac t i vi tyi n ques t i on i s pr ot ect ed bythe Fi r s tA m endment , and ( 2) thatthe pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyw as a s ubs t ant i al fac t ori n the al l eged r et al i at oryact i on. ” Hill v . Bo r o u g h o

f Ku t z t o wn , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 4 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). “T h ese d eterm ination s are 2 ques t i ons of l aw forthe court . ” B aldassare , 2 5 0 F . 3 d at 19 5 . A p u b li c e m p loy ee ’s s t at ement s ar e pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyunderthe Fi r s tA m endmenti f ( 1) w hen maki ng the sta tem e n t, th e e m p lo y e e sp o k e a s a c iti z e n , (2 ) th e sp e e c h in v o lv e d a m a tter o f p u b lic conce rn, and ( 3) “the governm entempl oy erdi d nothave ‘ an ade quat e j us t i fi cat i on for tre a tin g th e e m p lo y e e d if f e re n tlyf ro m a n yo th e r m e m b e r o f th e g e n e ra l p u b lic’ a s a re su lt of the s t at ementhe made. ” Hill , 455 F. 3d at241- 42 ( quot i ng G ar cet t iv. C ebal l os , 12 6 S. C t. 1 9 5 1 , 1 9 5 8 (20 0 6 )). “A publ i c empl oy ee doe s nots peak ‘ as a ci t i zen’ w hen he makes a s t at ement

‘ pur s uantt o [hi s ] offi ci al dut i es , ’ ” id . at242 ( quot i ng G a rc e tti , 126 S. C t . at1960) , and as8

s u c h , “ th e C o n s titu tio n d o e s n o t in s u la te th e irc o m m u n ic a tio n s f ro m e m p lo y e r d is c ip lin e ,” For akerv. C haf

f i nch , 501 F. 3d 231, 239 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng G a rc e tti , 126 S. C t . at 1960) . H er e, M eena n’ s s t at ement s t o the medi a w er e notm ade pur s uantt o hi s offi ci al d u ties . R a th e r, h e sp o k e in h is c a p a c itya s a p riv a te c iti z e n a n d a p a re n t, an d h is m e d ia re p o rt b o re n o o f

f ic ia l s ig n if

ic a n c e . G a rc e tti , 1 2 6 S . C t. at 1 9 6 0 ; P i cke r i ng v. B d of E duc. , 391 U . S. 563, 574 ( 1968) . C ont act i ng a t el evi s i on r eport erw i th conce rns about the s uffi ci encyof anotheroffi cer ’ s i nves t i gat i on w as notone of the t as ks M eena n w as e x p e c te d to p e rf

o rm . S e e G a rc e tti , 1 2 6 S . C t. at 1 9 6 0 ; For aker , 501 F. 3d at241. I ndeed, the PSP has a pol i cyr equi r i ng thatoffi cer s noti nt er fer e w i th ongoi ng i nves t i gat i ons or r el eas e i nform at i on t o t he publ i c w i thoutcompl y i ng w i th cert ai n r egul at i ons . T her efor e, M eenan ’s con du ctw as not w i thin the b ou nd s of his off i ci al du t i es. G i ven that the fir st cr i t er i on i s s at i s fi ed, w e turn t o t he s econd. A p u b lic e m p lo y e e ’s s p e e c h in v o lv e s a m a tter o f p u b lic c o n c e rn if

it ca n b e “ f

a irly cons i der ed as r el at i ng t o anym att erof pol i t i cal , s oci al , orotherconce rn t o the comm uni ty . ” Ho ld e rv . Ci t y o f Al l e n t o wn , 987 F. 2d 188, 195 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( ci t i ng C on nick v. M

yers , 461 U . S. 138, 146 ( 1983) ) . W e exa m i ne the “c ont ent , form , and cont extof a gi ven s t at ement , as r evea l ed bythe w hol e r ecor d” t o det erm i ne w hetheran e m p lo y e e ’s s p e e c h a d d re s s e s a m a tte r o f p u b lic c o n c e rn . C onni ck , 4 6 1 U .S . a t 1 4 7 -4 8 . A l though M eena n’ s m ot i ve forcont act i ng the medi a w as a per s onal gr i evanc e, thi s does n o t n e c e s s a ri ly m e a n th a t th e to p ic o f h is s p e e c h w a s n o t a m a tte r o f p u b lic c o n c e rn , s ee9

W a tters v . C ity o

f P h ila d e lp h ia , 55 F . 3d 88 6, 89 4 (3d C i r. 19 95 ), al tho ug h h i s m oti ve is a re le v a n t f

a c to r, s ee Vers ar

ge v. Tow ns hi

p of C l i nt on , 984 F. 2d 1359, 1365 ( 3d C i r . 1993) (r easoning thatthe p l ai nti ff w as m oti vated bya “personal grud ge” w ei gh ed ag ai nst f in d in g th a t h e sp o k e o n a m a tter o f p u b lic c o n c e rn ); Zam boniv. Stam l er , 847 F. 2d 73, 77–78 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( des cr i bi ng the s peake r ’ s m ot i vat i on as “mer el yone fa ct or ” t o be c o n s id e re d in a s s e s s in g th e c h a ra c te r o f th e e m p lo y e e ’s s p e e c h ). M eena n’ s s t at ed purpos e forcont act i ng the medi a w as thatthe M eena ns w ant ed the comm uni tyt o know aboutthe ac t i ons of the t eac her , theyw er e conc erned thatthe sc h o o l w o u ld su c c e ss f

u llyc o v e r u p th e tea c h e r’s a c tio n s, a n d th e yw e re h o p e f u l th a t a new s r eportw oul d pr om ptform ers tudent s t o come for w ar d. T he r ecor d, how ever , m akes c le a r t h a t h e w a s p a rt ic u la rl ym o tiv a te d b e c a u s e th e te a c h e r i n q u e s tio n w a s h is c h ild ’s . N ev erthe less, the p u b li c d o es h av e a n interest i n learn ing o f im p rop er c o n d u ct byteac h ers a n d se e in g th a t p o lice o f f ice rs d isc h a rg e th e ir re sp o n sib ili ties th o ro u g h lyto in v e stig a te c o m p la in ts o f

c ri m in a l c o n d u c t. See Conni ck , 461 U . S. at148. W e ther efor e conc l ude thatM eena n’ s s peec h w as on a mat t erof publ i c conc ern. N ext , w e exa m i ne w hetherthe PSP had an adequa t e j us t i fi cat i on fortr eat i ng M e e n a n d if

f e re n tly f ro m a n yo th e r m e m b e r o f th e g e n e ra l p u b lic . S e e G a rc e tti , 1 2 6 S . C t. at1958. T he PSP w oul d have ha d an ade quat e j us t i fi cat i on i f i t s i nt er es t s i n an ef fi ci ent and ef fec t i ve w or kpl ace outw ei gh M eena n’ s i nt er es t , as a ci t i zen, i n comm ent i ng upon m a tte rs o f

p u b lic c o n c e rn . See Pi cke r i ng , 391 U . S. at568. T he s t at e has the bur den of10

d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t its in te re s ts s h o u ld p re v a il. B aldassare , 2 5 0 F . 3 d at 19 8 . T h e p u b li c’s in ter e st in p o ten tial im p ro p rie tya n d b re a c h e s o f tru st b yp u b lic e m p lo y e e s – e sp e c ially p o lic e , g iv e n th e irro le in e n s u ri n g p u b lic s a f e ty –is s tr o n g . See i d. I n exami ni ng the s t at e’ s i nt er es t s , w e l ook atw hetherthe s t at ementi m pai r s di s ci pl i ne, harm onyamong cow or ker s , has a detr i m ent al i m pacton cl os e w or ki ng r el at i ons hi ps , ori nt er fer es w i th the re g u la r o p e ra tio n o f

th e e n te rp ri s e . R anki n v. McPhers on , 4 8 3 U .S . 3 7 8 , 3 8 8 (1 9 8 7 ). T h e d e f e n d a n ts n e e d n o t sh o w th a t M e e n a n ’s s p e e c h a c tu a llyc a u se d d isru p tio n , b u t o n ly th a t it w a s lik e ly to b e d is ru p tiv e . W atters , 55 F. 3d at896. M eena n vi ol at ed a PSP r egul at i on, w hi ch pr ovi des that“[m]e m ber s s hal l not i nt er fer e w i th an i nves t i gat i on as s i gned t o anotheragenc yfori nves t i gat i on w i thoutthe cons entof thatagenc y , exce ptbythe or derof thei rT r oop C om m ander , B ur eau/ O ffi ce D i r ect or , orthei rdes i gnee. ” M eena n di d notobt ai n hi s T r oop C om m ander ’ s perm i s s i on befo re cont act i ng the m edia. M eenan ’s viol at i on of a k no w n P S P po l i cyw ei gh s agai nst h im . See Conni ck , 461 U . S. at153 n. 14. M eena n’ s di s r egar d of PSP r egul at i ons and the es t abl i s hed cha i n of comm and underm i ned hi s s upervi s or ’ s author i tyand di s ci pl i ne w i thi n the PSP. A l though “pol i cemen, l i ke t eac her s and l aw y er s , ar e notr el egat ed t o a w at er ed- dow n ver s i on of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , ” W atters , 55 F. 3d at899, court s have gi ven l aw enfor cementagenc i es w i de l at i tude t o r egul at e an e m pl oy ee’ s s peec h w hen that s p e e c h im p a c ts a re a s s u c h a s d is c ip lin e , m o ra le , a n d u n if o rm ity w ith in th e f

o rc e , se e C ity of San D i ego v. R oe , 5 4 3 U .S . 7 7 , 8 4 (2 0 0 4 ) (h o ld in g th a t a p o lice o f f ice r’s o f f -d u ty11

d istrib u tio n o f

v id e o s o f

h im e n g a g in g in p o rn o g ra p h ic a c tiv ityw a s n o t a m a tter o f p u b lic conce rn i n partbeca us e “[ t ] he s peec h i n ques t i on w as detr i m ent al t o the mi s s i on and funct i ons of the empl oy er ”) ; Kel l ey v . Johns on , 425 U . S. 238, 245 ( 1976) ( r ecogni zi ng th a t p o lice d e p a rtm e n ts s h o u ld b e g ra n ted d e f e re n c e to m a k e c h o ice s re late d to

“ d isc ip lin e , es p irit de c o rp s, a n d u n if o rm ity ” ); O ladei nde v. C i t y of B i r m i ngham , 230 F. 3d 1275, 1293 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( “I n a l aw enfor cementagenc y , ther e i s a hei ght ened ne ed for o rd e r, lo y a lty , m o ra le a n d h a rm o n y , w h ich a f f o rd s a p o lice d e p a rtm e n t m o re latitu d e in re sp o n d in g to th e sp e e c h o f its o f f ice rs th a n o th e r g o v e rn m e n t em p lo y e rs.” ); D ill v . C ity of E dm ond , 1 5 5 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 2 0 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (n o tin g th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s in ter e st is “part i cular l yacute i n the con t ext of l aw enfo rcem ent, w here there i s a hei gh t ened i nter est

. . . i n m ai nt ai ni ng di s ci pl i ne and ha r m onyamong em pl oy ees ”) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); cf . C onni ck , 461 U . S. at151- 52 ( “W hen cl os e w or ki ng r el at i ons hi ps ar e es s ent i al t o ful fi l l i ng publ i c r es pons i bi l i t i es , a w i de degr ee of defe r ence to the em p loy er’s jud g m en t i s ap p rop ri ate.”). F u rth erm o re, M ee n an ’s ac ti o n s m ayw ell h av e u n d erm ined S eb asti an ell i’ s i nves t i gat i on. M eena n i dent i fi ed hi m s el f as a s t at e tr oopert o the r eport erand gave names a n d tele p h o n e n u m b e rs o f th e p a re n ts, w h ich q u ite lik e lym a d e th e p a re n ts le ss in c lin e d to c o o p e ra te w ith th e in v e stig a tio n . M e e n a n ’s v io latio n o f P S P re g u latio n s a n d h is f a ilu re to fol l ow the cha i n of comm and mi ghthave be en j us t i fi ed i f he s us pect ed hi s comm andi ng offi cerof w r ongdoi ng, s ee Conni ck , 4 6 1 U .S . at 1 4 8 , b u t h e w e n t to th e m e d ia, n o t toTh ede fend ants c on c e dethat th is ac tiv ity is p ro te c te d b y

theF ir st Amendment. 3 12 r eporti nt ernal corrupt i on orcr i t i ci ze PSP pol i ci es , butt o ai rhi s per s onal di s s at i s fac t i on w i th Sebas t i anel l i ’ s i nves t i gat i on. G i ven thatM eena n w as m ot i vat ed bya per s onal dis pu t e and that he vi olat ed a P S P regul at i on , w e con cl ud e t hat M eenan ’s l i m i t ed int eres t i n the s peec h does notoutw ei gh the s t at e’ s i nt er es ti n m ai nt ai ni ng or der , trus t , and d is c ip lin e w ith in th e P S P . See Conni ck , 461 U . S. at152 ( hol di ng thatthe s t at e mayneed t o m ake a s tr ongers how i ng “i f the empl oy ee’ s s peec h m or e s ubs t ant i al l yi nvol ved m att er s of publ i c conc ern”) . W e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi d noterri n gr ant i ng su m m a ryju d g m e n t to d e f e n d a n ts H a rriso n , S ist, R ice , an d S e b a stia n e lli . b. R e talia tio n f

o r f ili n g f e d e ra l law su it S haw n M eenan al so con t end s that defend ants T rai st er and F oo se r et al i at ed ag ai nst hi m forfi l i ng thi s fede r al l aw s ui t . A s the di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l ydet erm i ned, the fi l i ng of a l a w s u i ti s a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i ty. See Foraker , 5 0 1 F .3 d a t 2 3 6 . 3 T her efor e, w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherthatactbyM eena n w as a s ubs t ant i al orm ot i vat i ng f a c to r in th e a lleg e d re talia to ryc o n d u c t. A publ i c empl oy erengage s i n uncons t i tut i onal r et al i at i on “w hen i tm akes deci s i ons , w hi ch r el at e t o pr om ot i on, tr ans fer , r eca l l and hi r i ng, bas ed on the exe r ci s e of an empl oy ee' s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . ” B r ennan v. N or t on , 3 5 0 F . 3 d 3 9 9 , 4 1 9 (3d C ir . 2003) . A ct i ons thatar e “ de m i nim is o r tri v ial , ” h o w ev er, do n o t violate an em p loy ee ’s F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . I d. T he courtm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe al l eged a ct s of13

h a ra ss m e n t w e re “ su f

f icie n t to d e ter a p e rso n o f o rd in a ryf

irm n e ss f ro m e x e rc isin g h is Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . ” Suppan v. D adonna , 2 0 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e p a rt ie s d o n o t d is p u te th a t F o o s e p u lle d a c a llb o x w h e n n o e m e rg e n c ye x is te d . F o o se a rg u e s th a t h e p u lled th e c a llb o x to tes t M e e n a n ’s r e sp o n se tim e . V iew in g th e f a c ts i n the l i gh tm ostfavo rabl e t o M eenan , F oo se’ s act i on , w hil e i nap propri at e, w as de m in im is a n d n o t p a rt o f a c o n tin u in g c o u rse o f

c o n d u c t. T h e re f

o re , itd id n o t v io late M e e n a n ’s F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . See Bre nnan , 3 5 0 F .3 d a t 4 1 9 ; s ee al s o McKee v . H art , 436 F. 3d 165, 171 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng thats upervi s or ’ s cr i t i cal s t at ement s and r epr i m ands di d notr i s e t o t he l evel of a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on) . A ddi t i onal l y , M eena n fai l ed t o pr ovi de anyevi dence s how i ng thatFoose w as m ot i vat ed byM eena n’ s pr ot ect ed act i vity ; i nst ead, he si m plyassert s that a j urycou l d co nclude that the law sui tw as a m ot i vat i ng fac t ori n Foose ’ s act i ons . W e r ej ectthi s concl us oryal l egat i on and conc l ude thats um m aryj udgm entw as pr oper l ygr ant ed i n favorof def endantFoose . Si m i l ar l y , M eena n has fai l ed t o offe revi dence demonstr at i ng thatT r ai s t ert ook re talia to rya c tio n a g a in st h im . M e e n a n a rg u e s th a t T ra iste r a id e d a n d a c q u ies c e d in Foose ’ s act i ons . Fut her , M eena n has nots ubm i t t ed evi dence demonstr at i ng that T r ai s t er ’ s conductw as m ot i vat ed byM eena n’ s pr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty . W e conc l ude that M eena n has fai l ed t o s how thatT r ai s t er ’ s act i ons r i s e t o the l evel of a c ons t i tut i onal v io la tio n , s ee Bre nnan , 3 5 0 F .3 d a t 4 1 9 ; McKee , 436 F. 3d at171; ther efor e, the di s tr i ct c o u rt p ro p e rlyg ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t f o r d e f e n d a n t T ra iste r, as w e ll.14

C . T h e C o n sp ira c y C la im F inally , the M ee n an s co n tend that the d istri ct co u rterred w h en itg ran ted s u m m ary j udgm enti n favorof the def endant s on thei rcons pi r acycl ai m . T heycont end thatR i ce, S eb asti an ell i, S ist , an d S era fin co n sp ir ed to sh iftthe f o cu s o f th e inv esti g ati o n tow ard S h a wn M e e n a n . “ S i n c e l i a b i l i tyf o rc i v i l c o n s p i r a c yd e p e n d s o n p e r f o r ma n c e o f

s o me un derl y i ng t ort i ou s act , the co nspir acyi s not i nd epen den t l yact i on able; rather, i ti s a m eans fores t abl i s hi ng vi car i ous l i abi l i tyforthe under l y i ng t or t . ” B oyanow s kiv. C api tal A re a In ter m e d ia te U

n it , 2 1 5 F . 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 7 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( i n t e rn a l c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . We concl ude thatbeca us e the M eena ns fai l ed t o offe revi dence s how i ng a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, the di s tr i ctcourtdi d noterri n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entfordefe ndant s on th e c o n s p i r a c yc l a i m. I V. F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, the judgm ent of the d i stri ctcou rti s AF F I RM ED .