Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5, the court has determined that this o pinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except unde r the limite d circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. Rey e sm ake sn oar gu m e nt sa st oa nyo th e ri n divi du ald e f e n d a nto rth eWe slaco 1 In depen dent Scho ol District. Ac c o r din gly , any ar gu m e nts regardi ngth e re maining defe ndants 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40231
M A N U E L R E Y E S , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. W ES LA CO I NDEPENDENT S CHOO L DI S TR I CT ; RI CHARD RI VERA; RUB EN AL EJ AND RO ; DA NI EL DE L OS S ANT OS ; DAVI D F OX ; J OE M ARI NES; RAY M OND GI VI LA NCZ; RAM ON M ONTAL VO; BUCKLE Y S A N C H E Z , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas ( 06- C V

- 372)
B ef ore S T E W A R T , D E N N IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * M an u elR eyes (“R e y es” ) app eal s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of sum m ary j u dg m en t on h i s F i rst A m en dm en t f reedom of associ ati on cl ai m s a g a inst de fe nda nt Ri c har d Ri vera i n hi s i ndi vi dua lc ap ac i t y. Fi r s t , Rey e s c l ai m s t he 1 United States Court of A pp eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

3, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40231

h av e b ee nwaived
. Gates v. Tex. Dep’tof Pro te ct ive &Re gu lato ry Servs. , 537 F.3d 40 4, 435(5th C ir . 2 0 0 8) (f

ail ur et oa dv a n c ear gu m e nt so nap p e ala st oagiv e nd e f e n d a ntc o n st it u te s a waivera s t o th at de fe n da nt)
. 2 di st ri ctcourt err ed w h en i t concl u ded R eyes fai l ed to rai se a g en u i n e i ssue of
m a te r ia l fa c t r e g a r d in g w h e th e r h e w a s re ta lia te d a g a in s t b a s e d o n h is associ ati on w i t h h i s w i fe. S econd , R eyes a pp eal s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c on cl u si on th a t t h e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t p r o v id e a n a s s o c ia tio n a l rig h t t o e n g a g e in
e x t r a m a r i t a la f

fa i r s . W e AF FI RM
. I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND R eyes w orked as a b u s dri ver f or t h e T ran sport ati on D epa rt m en t of W esl aco I n dep en den t Sch oolD i st ri ct(“ W esl aco IS D ” ) on an d of f f or a peri od of
m ore t h an t w en t y years begi n n i n g in 198 2. D u ri n g h i s em pl oym en t , R eyes e n g a g e d in a le n g t h y a ffa ir w it h a fe ll o w b u s d r iv e r . I n S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 4 , R e y e s ’s
w i fe, N orm a R eyes, contact ed W esl aco I S D S u peri n t en den t R i cha rd R i vera ( “ R i vera”) abou t t h e af fai r. Sh e w as extr em el y u pset an d d em an ded t h at R i vera t erm i n ate bot h R eyes a n d t h e em pl oyee w i t h w h om R eyes w as h aving t h e af fai r. R i vera di rect ed B u ckl ey S an chez ( “ S an chez”) , W esl aco I S D ’ s Tran sport ati on D i rect or, an d A ssi st an t Su peri n t en den t R u ben A l ej an dro ( “A l ej an dro”) t o m eet w i t h b o t h e m pl o ye e s t o di s c us s t he i m po r t anc e o f a voi di ng di s r upt i o ns t o t he ef f i ci en t operati on of t h e T ran sport ati on D epa rt m en t . A dd i t i on al l y, R i vera m et w i t h R eyes separ a te ly to ex press hi s di spl easu re at t h e si t u ati on . R eyes v o lu n ta r ily re s ig n e d h is p o s itio n a s h o r t t im e la te r o n O c to b e r 6 , 2 0 0 4
. A f t er s om e neg ot i ati on , R eyes w a s h i red back as a substi t u t e bu s dri ver o n a pr o ba t i o nar y ba s i s w hi c h was t hen conv e r t e d t o a r e gul arb as i s a f t e r t he proba t i on ary peri od en ded a t the st art of t h e 200 5- 200 6 school year. I n A u gu st 200 5, R eyes att en ded a m an da t ory “ i n servi ce” m eet i n g f or m em bers of

W esl aco I SD ’ s Tr ans po r t at i o n Depart m en t . At t he m e e t i ng, Rey e s r ai s e d a n i s s ue reg a rd i n g th e p oli ci es gov ern i n g bu s d ri ve r m a n a ge m en t of disru p ti ve stu d en tsN o. 09- 40231

3 o n s c h o o l b u s e s . S a n c h e z , w h o le d th e m e e tin g , in fo r m e d R e y e s th a t h e w o u ld
on l y di scuss t h e m a tte r p riv atel y w i t h hi m . I n order t o prot est “bei n g ref u sed
a n an sw er a n d d i rection from [ S a n ch ez ], ” R ey es sign ed “G eo rg e W a sh i n gto n ” t o an ackn ow l edg m en t f orm ha n ded out at t h e “ i n ser vi ce” m e e t i n g. R eyes al so al l e ge s t hathe w as l at e r fal s e l y ac c us e d o f ha vi ng s i gne d “ G e o r ge W as hi ngt o n” to a s e c o n d fo r m . A s a resul t of

t h i s c on du ct , Sa n chez recom m en ded t o R i vera an d A l ej an dro t h a t R e y e s b e te r m in a t e d . N o t h in g in th e r e c o r d s u g g e s t s S a n c h e z ’s
recom m en da t i on w as based u pon R eyes’ s pri or extr am ari t al af fai r. R ivera
ac c e pt e d Sa nc he z ’ s r e c o m m e n dat i o n, a nd, s ho r t l y t he r e af t e r , Rey e s r e c e i ve d a l et t er f rom Sa n chez n ot i f

yi n g h i m of the term i n ati on of h i s em pl oym en t . R eyes o bj e c t e d t o hi s t e r m i n a t i o n t hr o ugh W e s l ac o I SD ’ s g r i e va nc e pr o c e s s . Dur i ng t he gr i ev a n ce p roce ss, R ey es w a s rep rese n ted by l eg a l cou n sel, a s w a s th e d i stri ct. Af t e r e xt e ns i ve he ar i ngs , Rey e s ’ s g r i e va nc e s w e r e de ni e d a t e ac h l e vel of t he process. R eyes ha s not ad van ced an y evi den ce t h at t h e den i al of hi s gri evan ces w a s re la te d to h is p r io r e x tr a m a r ita l a ffa ir
. O n D ecem ber 28, 200 6, R eyes broug h t a 42 U
. S
. C
. § 1983 sui t against W e s l a c o I S D, R i v e r a , S a n c h e z , A l ej a n d r o , a n d I S D B o a r d me mb e r s Da n i e lDe L os S an t os, D avid F ox, J oe M ari n es, R aym on d G i vi l an ez, a n d R am on M on t al vo. Rey e s ’ s c o m pl ai nt w e nt t hr o ugh v ar i o us m o t i o ns t o di s m i s s , a m e ndm e nt s , a nd ad di t i on al m ot i on s t o di sm i ss bef ore t h e di st ri ctcourt f i n al l y h eard the m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udgm ent und er l yi ng t hi s appeal
. By t hat t i m e, R eye s’ s c as e had be e n r e duc e d t o t he f o l l o w i ng c l ai m s : 1 ) Rey es’ s § 1983 Fi r s t Am e ndm e nt
r e ta lia tio n a n d E q u a l P r o te c tio n cla im s a g a in s t W e s la c o IS D s te m m in g fr o m h is f i n al t erm i n ati on i n 200 5 an d h i s d en i ed gri evan ces t h at f ol l ow ed; 2 ) R eyes’ s § 1983 Fi r stA m endm ent r et al i at i on and E qual P r ot ec t i on c l ai m s agai nstR i ver a, S a n c h e z , a n d A leja n d r o in th e ir in d iv id u a l ca p a c i t ie s ; a n d 3 ) R e y e s ’ s cla im sN o. 09- 40231

Appe lle es argu e R ey es h as waive d any argum en t re spectin g his right to a ssociat e 2 with his wife. We disagree. I n order to preserve an errorfor appeal, “the argument must be rais edto su chad egre e th at th e trial co u rtmayru leo nit. ” I n re F airchild AircraftC

orp. , 6 F.3 d 11 19, 112 8 (5 th Cir. 1 993). Her e, th ough the di s t r ic tcourt co nstru ed his argu ments othe rwise, R ey es met this ve ry low thresho ld. Reyes cl early assertedth at his clai ms flowed fr omhisright to“inti matea sso ci ati on” withhis wife a n d th at “hisa sso ci ati on s withhiswife ulti mat ely led to Sup erin tend ent Rivera’ s rec om me ndat ion that[Reyes ] notbe rehire d. ” As 4 ari si n g u n de r th e T exas C on st i t u t i on . Th e di st ri ctcourt gran t ed su m m ary ju d g m e n t o n a ll o f th e s e re m a in in g cla im s , a n d R e y e s tim e ly a p p e a le d
. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW We r e v i e w a g r a n t o f s u mma r y j u d g me n t d e n o v o , a p p l y i n g t h e s a me s ta n d a r d a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Bol t o n v . Ci ty of D al l as , 47 2 F
. 3 d 26 1 , 26 3 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. O ur i nqui r y “ i s l i m i t e d t o t he s um m ar y j udg m e nt r e c o r d b e f o r e t he tri a lcou rt. ” Top al i an v . Ehr m an , 9 5 4 F .2 d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 3 2 n .1 0 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). W e m ustvi ew t he e vi denc e i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o t he n on -m ov i ng par t y, Mat s us hi t a El e c . I

ndus
. Co. v . Ze ni t h R adi o Cor p. , 4 75 U
. S. 5 74 , 5 87 ( 19 86 ) , a nd th e m o v a n t h a s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th is co u r t t h a t s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t is
a p p rop ri a te . C elo texC o rp . v . C a tre tt , 477 U
. S
. 317 , 323 ( 198 6)
. Su m m ary j u dg m en t is a pp ropri ate w h ere t h e com petent s u m m ary j u dg m en t evi den ce de m o ns t r at e s t hatt he r e i s no g e nui ne i s s ue o f m at e r i al fa c t a nd t he m o vi ng p a r ty is e n tit le d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tt e r o f la w . B ol t on , 4 7 2 F .3 d a t 2 6 3 ; see F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 (c ). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON A
. Fi r s t Am e ndm e nt R e t al i at i on B ase d on R eye s ’ s Marr i age R eye s f i rstcontends that t h e di st ri ctcourt err ed i n gran t i n g sum m ary j u dg m en t becau se a genu i n e i ssue of m ater i al fact exi st ed as to w h et h er R eyes w as term i n ated in ret al i ati on forex erci si n g h i s r i gh t t o assoc i ate w i t h hi s w i fe. W e agree w i t h t h e di st ri ctcou rt’s c o n cl u si on t h at “ [ t ] h e evi den ce does not
s u p p o r t a cla im th a t D e fe n d a n ts t e r m in a te d [ R e y e s ]’s e m p lo y m e n t o r d e n ie d h is g r ie v a n c e b e c a u s e o f h is re la tio n s h ip w ith h is w ife .” 2N o. 09- 40231

such, Reyes at l east put the issuebefore thedistrict court , evenif thecourt l atercon strued it as re ferrin g only to the right engage in an extramaritalaffair. Appell ees’ citationto Saddler v. Quit man C

oun tySchoo l Dist rict , 27 8 F . App’x41 2 (5 th Cir. 2 008) (unpublishe d) , o n this point i s un av ailing . I n Saddler , th e dis t rict court co nstru ed th e pl aintiff’s c omplaint as all egin g fe de ral, b u t n ot st ate , equ al prot ec ti on cl aim s. Id
. at 415. The court co ncluded that th e pl aintiff

waivedanyapp ellatear gu me nt a s tohe r st ateequ al prot ec ti onc laim s b ec a u se she fail ed toch all enge th e di strict court’s co nstru ctioneitherinth e dis t r ic t co urt or in her a pp ellateb ri ef

in g . Id
. at41 6 . Th e i n st a nt ca sei s dis tin gu is h ab lef ro m Saddler

i ntwoway s. First, R ey es’s su mmary ju dgment b riefingatle ast a sserted that his claims were groun ded in his right to a ssociat e with his wife whe reas the Saddler plaintiff maden o su ch argument to th e di strictc ourt . Id
. at41 5 n .5. Secon d, th e di strict court i n this case was onlycon struin g a single legal argument ratherth an the all eg atio ns in the und erlying compl aint. Th ough the argument mayn ot have bee n artfully presented, it was non ethe less a dvanced in the brie fing bel ow. Accordingly , R eyes i s entitle d to argue it on appeal. 5 A ret al i ati on cl ai m predi cat ed on fr eedom of assoc i ati on m u st sat i sf y t h ree e l e m e nt s: 1 ) t he pl ai nt i f f s uf fe r e d a n a dv e r s e e m pl o ym e nt a c t i o n; 2 ) t he p la in tiff

’ s in te r e s t in “a s s o c ia tin g ” o u tw e ig h e d th e e m p lo y e r ’ s in te r e s t in
e f f i c i e nc y; a nd 3 ) t he pl ai nt i f f’ s pr o t e c t e d a c t i vi t y w as a s ubs t ant i ala nd
m o tiv a tin g fa c to r in t h e a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n . H itt v . C o n n ell , 301 F. 3d 240 , 246 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)
. R eyes fai l s t o poi n t t o a si n gl e piec e of evi den ce s ugg e s t i ng he w as t e r m i nat e d f o r as s o c i at i ng w i t h hi s w i fe . On t he c o nt r ar y, t he
r ec or d dem ons t r at es t hat R i ver a t hought h i ghl y of R eye s’ s w i fe a nd, i f

anyt hi ng, wo u l d h a v e s o u g h t t o p u n i s h Re y e s e x c l u s i v e l y f o r e n g a g i n g i n t h e a f fa i r . As
suc h, w e f

i nd t hat R eye s has fail ed to r ai se a g enui ne i ss ue o f m at er i alfac t as t o w h et h er hi s assoc i ati on w i t h hi s w i fe w as a su bstanti al an d m ot i vati n g fact or in h is te r m in a tio n . B
. Firs t A m en d m en t R eta lia tion B a se d on R ey es ’ s Ex tra m a rita l Affa ir R eyes al so argues t h at R i vera’ s c on d u ct vi ol ated his pu rport ed F i rst A m en dm en t r i gh t t o eng age i n an ext ram ari t al af fai r w i t h hi s f

el l ow em pl oyee. W e n ee d n ot a d d ress th e m erits of t h i s cl a i m as R ey es a l lbu t exp ress l y a d m i ts defeat notw i t h st an di n g h i s d eci si on to app eal
. Th e di st ri ctcourt hel d that al lof th e ind i vid u a lde fen d a n ts, i n cl u d i n g R i ve ra , w ere en ti tl ed t o q u a l i fi ed i m m u n i ty
r e as o ni ng t hat no bi ndi ng pr e c e de nt e xi s t e d f i ndi ng t hatt he Fi r s t Am e ndm e ntN o. 09- 40231

6 af f ords prot ect ed st atus t o ext ram ari t al af fai rs w i t h co- w orkers such t h at s u ch
a righ t, if

a n y, w a s n ot “clea rl y esta b l i sh ed l a w . ” S ee Ha rlo w v. Fitzg er a ld , 457 U
. S. 8 00 , 8 18 ( 19 82 ) (ho l di ng t hatq ual i f i e d i m m uni t y s hi e l ds a g o ve r nm e nt of f i ci al f rom l i abil i t y f

or di scr et i on ary acts “ i n sofar as t h ei r c on du ctdoes not vi o l at e c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d s t at ut o r y o r c o ns t i t ut i o nalri ght s o f w hi c h a
reasona bl e p erson w ou l d h ave kn ow n . ” )
. R eyes ha s c om pl et el y fai l ed to ad dress th e d i stri ct co u rt’ s gr ou n d s for de ci sion
. H e m a k es n o a rg u m en t w i th resp ect to qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y. A dd i t i on al l y, he op en l y concedes that hi s c l ai m i s not s upp o r t e d b y c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d l aw and as ks us t o e xt e nd a Fi r s t Am e ndm e nt
r i ght i n t hi s c as e t o pr o vi de hi m t he r e l i e f he s e e ks
. Acc o r di ngl y, w e f i n d no basi s t o revers e t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c on cl u si on t h at R i vera i s en t i t l ed t o qu al i f i ed i m m uni t y. I V . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, w e A F F IR M t h e j u dg m en t of t h e di st ri ct cou rt.