## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary24,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
B A R B A R A PE R E A C A SE Y and F RA NK C AS E Y, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ees, v. WES T L AS VE GAS I NDE P E NDE NT SCHO OL D I STRI CT, a n d W ALTER ADAMS , AM BR OS E CA S T E L L ANO, PA TR I CK M A RQ U EZ, RA LPH G A R C I A , M I C H A E L V I G I L , and A R T U R O G U R U L E , in th e ir i nd i vidual capac i t i es, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants . N o. 06- 2054

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt for t he D i s t ri ct of

N ew M exi co ( D . C . N o. C I V - 04 - 11 57 A C T/ D JS) K evi n M . B r ow n ( D ani el J . M acke w i th hi m on the br i efs ) , of B r ow n & G erm an, A l bu qu erque, N ew M exico, for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants . D aniel Y oh al em , S anta Fe, N ew M exico, for Plai nti ffs-A pp el l ees. B efor e T A C H A , C h ie f J u d g e , T YMKOV I CH , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. GORS UCH , C i r cui tJ udge.- 2 -

B arbar a C as ey , a l ongt i m e N ew M exi co publ i c s ervant , s eeks damages fr om t he W estL as V egas Indep end ent Scho ol D i stri ctand vari ou s of i t s offici al s, al l egi ng t hatt heydemot ed and e ventual l yfi r ed heri n r et al i at i on forexer ci s i ng h er F ir st A m en d m en t r igh ts. H av ing m o v ed u n su cc essf u ll yfo r sum m ary j udgm enti n t he di s t r i ctcour t , defe ndant s appea l t o us . W hi l e thi s cas e aw ai t ed or al ar gum ent , t he Supr eme C our ti s s ued G ar cet t iv. C ebal l os , __U . S. __ , 12 6 S. C t . 1951 ( 2006) , w hi ch pr ofoundl yal t er s how court s r evi ew Fi r s tA m endment r et al i at i on cl ai m s . M s . C as eynow conce des t hata por t i on of one c l ai m i s barr ed b y G a rc e tti . W e agr ee a nd fi nd cert ai n otherpor t i ons al s o pr ecl uded byt he Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntrul i ng. St i l l , w e fi nd thatatl eas tone as pectof one of M s. C a se y ’s c laim s s u rv iv e s to trial. I A form erN ew M exi co s t at e l egi s l at orand s chool t eac her , M s . C as eys erved as Super i nt endentof the W es tL as V egas I ndepende ntSchool D i s tr i ct( “D i s tr i ct ”) f ro m J a n u a ry 2 0 0 2 u n til A p ri l 2 0 0 3 . V iew in g th e fa c ts in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le t o heras t he part yoppos i ng s um m aryj udgm ent , s he fa i r l yes t abl i s hes t he fo llo w in g : U pon becomi ng Super i nt endent , M s . C as eyas s um ed r es pons i bi l i tyfor serv ing as th e C h ief E x ec u ti v e O fficer (“C E O ”) o f th e D istri ct’s H ea d S tart pr ogr am, a fe der al l yfunded i ni t i at i ve ai m ed atpr ovi di ng educa t i onal oppor tuni t i es , m eal s , and hea l t h car e s ervi ces t o l ow - i ncome chi l dr en betw een- 3 -

th re e a n d fiv e y e a rs o f a g e . T h e D istric t’s H e a d S tar t p ro g ra m tra d iti o n a lly r ece i ved appr oxi m at el y$2. 5 m i l l i on annual l yfr om t he fe der al governm ent , but p ri o r t o the 2 0 0 1 -02 sch o o l y ea r, fe d era l auth o ri ti es d eterm ined that the D istri ct’s H e a d S tar t p ro g ra m h a d 6 1 m ajo r d e ficie n c ies a n d th re a ten e d to su sp e n d its f u n d in g . A p p e lla n ts ’ A p p . a t 1 3 1 ¶ 5 . T o hel p addr es s t hes e pr obl ems, i n J une 2002, t he D i s tr i cthi r ed J acque l i ne P adil l a (atM s. C asey ’s recom m end at i on ) t o m anag e t he H ead S t artprogram . M s. Padi l l a bec ame t he D i s t r i ct ’ s H ead St ar tdi r ect or , r eport ed t o M s . C as ey , and m a d e a n u m b e r o f

c h a n g e s a im e d a t b rin g in g th e D istric t’s p ro g ra m in to c o m p lia n c e w ith fe d e ra l r e g u la tio n s a n d e n s u ri n g its c o n tin u e d f u n d in g . Id . at 131 ¶ 6. B yt he w i nt erof 2002- 03, a fe der al over s i ghtagenc ydet erm i ned thatt he D i s t r i ct ’ s pr ogr am had i ndeed a chi eved s ubs t ant i al compl i ance w i th fede r al m a n d a te s . Id . S o m e tim e d u rin g th e p e rio d D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 - Ja n u a ry2 0 0 3 , M s. P a d ill a i nform ed M s . C as eyt hathers t aff had begun t o uncoverevi dence t hatas m anyas 5 0 % o f th e fa m ili e s e n ro lled in th e D istric t’s H e a d S tar t p ro g ra m a p p e a re d to have i ncomes thatw er e t oo hi gh fort hem t o qual i fyforpart i ci pat i on. M s . C as ey l earned thats om e fa m i l i es had i nt ent i onal l yom i t t ed fa m i l yi ncome i nform at i on or in fla te d th e s iz e o f

th e irfa m ily in o rd e r t o e n ro ll th e irc h ild re n in th e p ro g ra m . W o rrie d th a t th e se p ro b lem s th re a ten e d th e D istric t’s p ro g re ss a n d risk e d its futur e fundi ng, M s . C as eyr eport ed them t o W al t erA dams, t he W es tL as V egas- 4 -

S ch o o l B o ard ’s (“B o ard ”) p reside n t and o n e o f th e d efen d an ts be fo re u s. M r. A d a m s a lle g e d ly re s p o n d e d th a t M s . C a s e ys h o u ld n o t w o rr ya b o u t th e is s u e . Sever al m or e t i m es betw een J anuaryand A pr i l 2003, M s . C as eyr ai s ed the i s s ue w i t h M r . A dams and, i n exec ut i ve s es s i ons of the B oar d, the otheri ndi vi dual d e fe n d a n ts. E a c h tim e , sh e w a s to ld v a rio u slyn o t to w o rrya b o u t it , to le a v e it a lo n e , o r n o t to g o th e re . S e e id . a t 5 5 [ 5 1 :2 0 -5 1 :2 4 ], 5 9 [ 6 0 :1 2 -6 0 :2 1 ]. M s . C as eybeca m e conc erned that , gi ven the B oar d’ s i nact i on, “s he had a dut yas H ead St art ’ s exec ut i ve di r ect ort o r eportthi s w r ong doi ng [s i c] t o fede r al a u th o ri tie s .” See A p p e llee s’ B r. at 5 , 3 9 ; s ee als o A ppel l ant s ’ A pp. at138 [51: 25- 52: 3] . M s . C as eyt hus i ns truct ed hers ubor di nat e, M s . Padi l l a, t o appr oach t he fede ral H ead S t art regi on al offi ce i n D al l as and rel ay her fi nd i ng s. T his M s. Padi l l a di d. E ventual l y , on A ugus t8, 2003, t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof H eal t h & H um an Servi ces ( “H H S”) det erm i ned thatcert ai n enr ol l m ent s i n the D i s t r i ct ’ s H ead St artpr ogr am w er e i ndeed i m pr operand or der ed the r epaym entof m or e than hal f a mi l l i on dol l ar s i n fede r al ai d. D u rin g th e 2 0 0 2 -0 3 sc h o o l y e a r, M s. C a se ya lso in fo rm e d th e B o a rd th a t it w as vi ol at i ng t he N ew M exi co O pen M eet i ngs A ctbym aki ng per s onnel and other d e c is io n s in e x e c u tiv e s e s s io n w ith o u t p ro p e r n o tic e a n d m e e tin g a g e n d a s . B eca us e defendant s appar ent l yi gnor ed herw arni ngs , on appr oxi m at el yM ar ch 17, 2003, M s . C as eyfi l ed a w r i t t en compl ai ntw i th the N ew M exi co A t t or ney G en era l’ s o ffice. O n M arc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 , the A tt o rne yG en era l’ s o ffice w rote to M r.- 5 -

A dams out l i ni ng t he part i cul ar s of M s . C as ey ’ s compl ai nt , encl os i ng a copyof the compl ai nt , and r eques t i ng a r es pons e. A ft err ece i vi ng the B oar d’ s r es pons e and compl et i ng i t s r evi ew of the mat t er , t he A t t orneyG ener al ’ s offi ce de t erm i ned that t he B oar d had i n fac tvi ol at ed the O pen M eet i ngs A ctand or der ed corr ect i ve a c tio n . Fi nal l y , M s . C as eybr oughtt o the B oar d’ s att ent i on a numberof other i s s ues dur i ng t he 2002- 03 s chool y earr egar di ng the D i s tr i ct ’ s oper at i ons t hat , s he bel i eved, vi ol at ed fe der al ors t at e l aw s . T hes e i ncl uded, byw ayof exa m pl e, an al l egat i on t hatt he D i s t r i cthi r ed empl oy ees w i thoutadvert i s i ng vaca nci es or conduct i ng a r evi ew pr oces s , and thati ti m pr oper l yhandl ed a c as e w her e a teac h er a n d sch o o l pri n cipa l w ere ca rry ing o n an affa ir . O n A pr i l 10, 2003, t he B oar d demot ed M s . C as eyt o A s s i s t ant Super i nt endent . W hi l e ther e i s s om e l ack of cl ar i tyr egar di ng exac t l yw hen the s chool boar d fur t herdeci ded nott o r enew M s . C as ey ’ s contr actfort he 2003- 04 s chool y ear , t he fa ct s befor e us s ugges tt hatt hi s m ayhave oc curr ed as ear l yas A p ri l 1 0 o r a s la te a s M a y8 , 2 0 0 3 . See A ppel l ant s ’ A pp. at130- 31 ¶ 3 ( “I w as demot ed byD efe ndant s t o t he pos i t i on of A s s oci at e Super i nt endenton A pr i l 10, 2003. O n M ay8, 2003 D efe ndant s vot ed nott o r enew m ycontr actof e m p lo ym e n t fo r a n yp o sitio n in th e sc h o o l d istric t.”); id . at73 ( M i nut es , R egul ar B oar d M eet i ng, A pr i l 10, 2003) ( B oar d unani m ous l yvot ed “nott o r enew t he e m p lo ym e n t co n tra c t w ith B a rb a ra C a se ya s S u p e rin ten d e n t” a n d “ to im m e d iate lyT hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on overthi s i nt er l ocut or yappea l of a de ni al of 1 s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t b e c a u s e it in v o lv e s th e a s s e rt io n o f q u a lifie d im m u n ity. See B l os s om v. Yar br ough , 4 2 9 F . 3 d 9 6 3 , 9 6 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). - 6 - r eas s i gn M s . C as eyfr om herpr es entpos i t i on t o the pos i t i on of A s s i s t ant S u p e rin ten d e n t th ro u g h th e re m a in d e r o f th e fisc a l y e a r” ); id . at174 ( l et t erfr om Super i nt endentA r tur o G urul e t o M s . C as ey ) ( “I r egr ett o i nform y ou thaton [s i c] the M ay8 , 2 0 0 3 W est L as V eg as [ S ch o o l D istri ct] bo ard m ee ti n g , y o u [r] em p loym en t con tr ac t fo r th e 2 0 0 3 -20 0 4 sch o o l y ea r w as n o t r en ew ed . ”). F o llo w in g h e r te rm in a tio n , M s. C a se yfiled a n a c tio n a g a in st th e D istric t, th e n e w S u p e ri n te n d e n t, a n d in d iv id u a l m e m b e rs o f th e B o a rd a lle g in g , in tera lia , th a t s h e w a s d is m is s e d in re ta lia tio n fo r e x e rc is in g h e r F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . T h e d efen d an ts un su cc essf u ll yso u g h t sum m aryjud g m en t i n the D istri ct C o u rt w ith re sp e c t to M s. C a se y ’s F irst A m e n d m e n t cla im s b a se d o n q u a lifie d im m u n ity a n d n o w p u rsu e th is a p p e a l ra isin g th e sa m e d e fe n se . Im m e d iate lyp rio r to 1 Ap p e l l a n t s ’ s u b mi s s i o n o f t h e i rr e p l yb r i e f, t h e S u p r e me Co u r th a n d e d d o wn G a rc e tti and, acc or di ngl y , w e s oughtand r ece i ved s uppl ement al br i efi ng fr om t he p a rt ie s to h e lp u s in a s s e s s in g th e im p a c t o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt ’s n e w g u id a n c e . II W e re v iew th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo . See Medi na v. C r am , 2 5 2 F .3 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 2 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). W h e n a d e fe n d a n t as se rts qual i fi ed i m m uni t yats um m aryj udgm ent , t he r es pons i bi l i tys hi ft s t o the pl ai nt i ff t o m eeta “he avyt w o- par tbur den, ” id . (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted),- 7 -

demonstr at i ng, fi r s t , t hatt he defendant ’ s act i ons vi ol at ed a c ons t i tut i onal or s t atut or yr i ghtand, s econd, t hatthe r i ghtati s s ue w as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed atthe t i m e of the defendant ’ s al l egedl yunl aw ful conduct . I n as s es s i ng w hetherthe r i ghtw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed, w e as k w hetherthe r i ghtw as s uffi ci ent l ycl earthat a r eas onabl e governm entoffi ceri n the defendant ’ s s hoes w oul d under s t and that w hathe ors he di d vi ol at ed thatr i ght . I f the pl ai nt i ff fai l s t o s at i s fyei therpartof th e tw o -p a rt in q u ir y , w e m u s t g ra n t th e d e fe n d a n t q u a lifie d im m u n ity. I n anal y zi ng a publ i c empl oy ee’ s Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m , t he Supr eme C our thas i ns t ruct ed thatw e mustfi r s tdeci de w hethert he s peec h at iss u e to u c h e s o n a m a tter o f p u b lic c o n c e rn a n d , if s o , w e m u st th e n p ro c e e d to as k w hethert he empl oy ee’ s i nt er es ti n comm ent i ng on t he i s s ue “outw ei ghs ” the in te re s t o f

th e s ta te a s e m p lo y e r. See D i l lv. C i t y of E dm ond , 155 F. 3d 1193, 1201 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( ci t i ng P i cke r i ng v. B d. of E duc. , 391 U . S. 563, 568 ( 1986) and C on nick v. M

yers , 461 U . S. 138, 146 ( 1983) ) . “The pr obl em i n anycas e, ” the Supr eme C our tobs erved, “i s t o arr i ve ata bal ance betw een the i nt er es t s of the [empl oy ee] , as ci t i zen, i n comm ent i ng upon m at t er s of publ i c conc ern and the in ter e st o f

th e S tate , as a n e m p lo y e r, in p ro m o tin g th e e fficie n c yo f th e p u b lic s ervi ces i tper form s t hr ough i t s empl oy ees . ” P i cke r i ng , 3 9 1 U. S . a t5 6 8 . Ho wSee, e. g. , R odr i c B . Schoen, Pi cker i ng P lu s Th irty Ye a rs : P u b lic 2 E mpl oyee s and Fr ee Spe ech , 30 T ex. T ech. L . R ev. 5, 30- 31 ( 1999) ( “W hen the Supr eme C our tcomm ands t hatt hes e [F] i r s t[A ] m endmentcas es be r es ol ved by bal anci ng compet i ng i nt er es t s , i ti s s car cel ys urpr i s i ng thatr eas onabl e per s ons w ill d isa g re e w ith th e u lti m a te b a lan c e stru c k in sp e c ific c a se s. H o w e v e r, u n til th e C o u rt p ro v id e s a d iffe re n t m e th o d o lo g y , li tig a n ts, law y e rs, a n d lo w e r c o u rts cannotavoi d t he unce r t ai nt ycons t i tut i onal bal anci ng i nevi t abl ypr oduces w hen ap p li ed to the ‘en o rm o u s v arietyo f fac t si tuation s’ pre sen ted in ca ses w h ere p u b lic e m p lo y e e s a re ter m in a ted f ro m g o v e rn m e n t em p lo ym e n t fo r re a so n o f th e ir sp o k e n o r w ritten e x p re ss io n . L a c k in g f u rth e r g u id a n c e f

ro m th e S u p re m e C o u rt, the fed era l cou rt s o f a p p ea ls ha v e o cc asio n all ysu p p lem en ted th e C o u rt ’s ju risp ru d e n c e w ith th e ir o w n re fin e m e n ts, n u a n c e s, e m p h a se s, a n d ‘ru les ’ to s i m pl i fyr es ol ut i on of publ i c empl oy ee- fr ee s peec h cas es ”) ; D . G or don Sm i th, C o m m e n t, B ey o n d“P u b lic C o n c e rn ” : Ne w Fre e S p e e c h S ta n da rds fo r P u b lic E mpl oyee s , 57 U . C hi . L . R ev. 249, 276 ( 1990) ( pr opos i ng “obj ect i ve rul es t hat appr oxi m at e the r es ul t s of [ P i cke r i ng ] bal anci ng w i thoutt he i ndet erm i nacyand e x c e ss iv e e x p e n d itu re o f ju d icia l re so u rc e s in h e re n t in b a lan c in g ” ); se e a lso id . at 2 6 9 -7 6 . - 8 - exac t l yw e ar e t o “w ei gh” and “ bal ance ” the r adi cal l yi ncomm ens ur at e i nt er es t s at s t ake i n P i cke r i ng ’ s s e c o n d p r o n g i s a m a t t e r o f g r e a t d e b a t e a n d l i t t l e c e r t a i n ty. 2 T he Supr eme C our tl as tT erm i n G a rc e ttid id re v isit P i cke r i ng ’ s fi r s tpr ong, how ever , and adde d s om e cl ar i t yt o the ques t i on w hen a publ i c empl oy ee s peaks as a ci t i zen r athert han as an empl oy ee. Speci fi cal l y , t he C our thel d thatw hen publ i c empl oy ees s peak “ pur s uantt o thei roffi ci al dut i es , t he empl oy ees ar e not s peaki ng as ci t i zens forFi r s tA m endmentpurpos es , and the C ons t i tut i on does not i ns ul at e thei rcomm uni cat i ons fr om empl oy erdi s ci pl i ne. ” G a rc e tti , 126 S. C t . at 1 9 6 0 . T h e ra tio n a le fo r th is ru le is th a t “[ r]e stric tin g sp e e c h th a t o w e s its exi s t ence t o a publ i c empl oy ee’ s pr ofes s i onal r es pons i bi l i t i es does noti nfr i nge a n ylib e rties th e e m p lo y e e m ig h t h a v e e njo y e d a s a p riv a te c iti z e n . It sim p lyI ndeed, t he Supr eme C our tnot ed thatempl oy er s have a “hei ght ened 3 i nt er es t [] i n contr ol l i ng s peec h m ade byan empl oy ee i n hi s orherpr ofes s i onal ca p ac ity , ” b ec au se su p erv isors h av e a n ee d to “e n su re tha t th eir em p loy ee ’s o fficia l co m m u n ica tio n s a re a c c u ra te, d e m o n stra te s o u n d ju d g m e n t, an d p ro m o te t he empl oy er ’ s m i s s i on. ” G a rc e tti , 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 1 9 6 0 . See, e. g. , F re d e ri c k S c h a u e r, The Supr em e C our t, 2005 Ter m – For ew or d: 4 Th e C o u rt’s A g en da – a n dthe Na ti o n ’s , 120 H arv. L . R ev. 4, 35 ( not i ng that G a rc e tti“e stab li sh ed a n ew rule g o v ern ing a v ast am o u n t of low er c o u rt li ti g ati o n ”); Supr em e C our t, 2005 Ter m – Leadi ng C as es , 120 H arv. L . R ev. 273, 273- 83 ( 2006) ( di s cus s i ng G a rc e tti ); s ee als o E rw in C h e m e ri n s k y , The Kennedy C our t : O ct oberTer m 2005 , 9 Gr e e n Ba g 2 d 3 3 5 , 3 4 0 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( d u r i n g t h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s l as tT erm , “the mosts i gni fi cant[Fi r s tA m endmentdeci s i on] l i kel yw as G a rc e tti ” ). B e sid e s e n c o u ra g in g lo w e r c o u rts to v iew th e fa c ts f ro m a “ p ra c tica l” 5 per s pect i ve, t he C our tdecl i ned t o pr ovi de gui dance on how w e ar e t o go about det erm i ni ng t he appr opr i at e s cope of an empl oy ee’ s offi ci al dut i es : “W e thus have no oc cas i on t o art i cul at e a c om pr ehens i ve fr amew or k fordefi ni ng the s cope of an e m pl oy ee’ s dut i es i n cas es w her e ther e i s r oom fors er i ous debat e. ” G a rc e tti , 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 1 9 6 1 . - 9 - r efl ect s t he exe r ci s e of e m pl oy ercontr ol overw hatthe empl oy eri t s el f has comm i s s i oned orcr eat ed. ” Id . T he ques t i on forus on P i cke r i ng ’s first p ro n g is 3 t hus s i gni fi cant l ym odi fi ed, and w e ar e obl i ged t o as k w hetherM s . C as eym ether 4 bu rden byprovidi ng evidence thather exp res si on s w ere m ade in her capacityas a c itiz e n a n d n o t p u rs u a n t to h e r “ o ffic ia l d u tie s .” 5 I n t hi s cas e, w e ar e pr es ent ed w i th thr ee s peci fi c s et s of comm uni cat i ons t hat M s. C aseyci t es as the b ases for herF i rs tA m end m ent r et al i at i on cl ai m s, t hos e r egar di ng ( i ) t he H ead St ar tpr ogr am, ( i i ) t he N ew M exi co O pen M eet i ngs Ac t , a n d ( i i i ) mi s c e l l a n e o u s o t h e rv i o l a t i o n s o f s t a t e o rfe d e r a l l a w ( e. g. , hi r i ng- 10 -

empl oy ees w i t houtadvert i s i ng vaca nci es orconduct i ng a r evi ew pr oces s , and im p ro p e rl yh a n d lin g c la im s o f m is c o n d u c t b yte a c h e rs a n d p ri n c ip a ls ). Mis c e lla n e o u s Vio la tio n s . I n herbr i ef a ddr es s i ng the i m pactof G a rc e tti , M s . C as eyt hought ful l yconce des thatanyact i on bas ed on thi s cat egoryof st at em ents i s now barr ed as a m at t er of l aw . A s M s. C aseypu t s i t , these stat em en ts fell w ith in the sco p e o f h er d u ti es a s S u p erinten d en t bec au se th eyw ere a im e d “ so lelyto th e S c h o o l B o a rd ” to w h ich sh e re p o rte d a n d h e r jo b a d m itt e d ly i ncl uded “a dvi s [i ng] D efe ndant s aboutthe l aw ful and pr operw ayt o conduct s chool bus i nes s . ” See A pp el l ees’ S ur- R eplyB ri ef at7 n . 4. W e agree w i th M s. C ase yan d h o ld the se statem en ts no lon g er a cti o n ab le af ter G a rc e ttiforboth of t he reasons she art i culat es. HeadStart . M s . C as ey ’ s s t at ement s w i th r es pectt o the H ead St ar tpr ogr am t hemsel ves ar e of tw o t ypes . T he fi r s t , and the bul k of hercomm ent s , i nvol ve stat em en ts directed to the S ch o o l B o ard co n v ey ing co n ce rn a b o u t th e D istri ct’s l ack of compl i ance w i t h fede r al r egul at i ons . I n ourvi ew , thes e s t at ement s do not fo rm the b asis fo r a c o lorab le F ir st A m en d m en t r etali ati o n claim af ter G a rc e tti for r eas ons M s . C as eyhas al r eadyi dent i fi ed. T hati s , thes e comm ent s w er e di r ect ed onl yt o hers upervi s or s and, i n eac h i ns t ance , M s . C as eys oughtt o r ai s e conc erns aboutt he l egal i t yof the D i s t r i ct ’ s oper at i ons . A s befor e, beca us e advi s i ng her empl oy eron “the l aw ful and pr operw ayt o conducts chool bus i nes s ” w as admi t t edl ypar tof herport fol i o, w e ca nnothel p butconcl ude thatM s . C as eySee A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at18 ( ar gui ng thatM s . C as eycaus ed di s rupt i on by 6 “r emov[i ng] her s el f fr om heradvi s oryand pol i cym aki ng r ol e . . . [byadvi s i ng t he (c o n tin u e d ...) - 11 - m a d e th e s e s ta te m e n ts p u rs u a n t to h e r o ffic ia l d u tie s . S e e G a rc e tti , 126 S. C t . at 1 9 5 9 -6 1 ; se e a lso Mills v . C ity o f E v a n sv ill e , 4 5 2 F . 3 d 6 4 6 , 6 4 7 -48 (7th C ir . 2006) ( hol di ng t hatan empl oy ee’ s i nt ernal di s cus s i ons advi s i ng s uper i or s about t he empl oy i ng i ns t i tut i on’ s pol i ci es ar e barr ed as a bas i s fora Fi r s tA m endment r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m b y G a rc e tti ). O ne rem ai ning st at em ent abou tthe H ead S t artprogram that m i gh tgive r i se t o a ca us e of a ct i on conce r ns M s . C as ey ’ s i ns truct i on t o M s . Padi l l a thatthe l att er s houl d cont actfede r al author i t i es and conve ythei rm utual conce rns aboutthe l egali t yof the D i stri ct ’s H ead S t artop erat i on s. H ere, M s. C aseydid not advis e herempl oy er s buti ns t ead w entverym uch ar ound them. T he ques t i on befor e us is w h e th e r, in d o in g so , M s. C a se yu se d M s. P a d ill a a s h e r a g e n t to e n g a g e in pr ot ect ed ci t i zen w hi s t l ebl ow i ng, orw hetherM s . C as eyact ed pur s uantt o her o ffici al du ti es in o rde ri n g a su b o rdin ate to re p o rtthe D istri ct’s reg u lat o ry no nco m pli ance to fede ral authori t i es. I nt er es t i ngl y , t he part i es befor e us both m ade a r gum ent s i n thei rpr i nci pal br i efs fi l ed befor e G a rc e ttit hatcutagai ns tthe r es ul ttheyw i s h thi s C our tt o r eac h af ter G a rc e tti . I n t hei rpr i nci pal br i ef be for e G a rc e tti , the defendant s ar gued that M s . C as eyact ed ultra vi res and i n a di s rupt i ve mannerbyr eport i ng the al l eged H ead St ar t vi ol at i ons t o t he fede r al offi ce. Forherpart , M s . C as eyar gued i n her 6( . . . cont i nued) 6 o u tsi d e a g en cies o f th e a ll eg ed lyil lega l con d u ct], w ith o u t fi rstad v isi n g the B o ard w h ich sh e se rv e d ” ); se e a lso id . at13- 14, 18- 20. - 12 - pr i nci pal br i ef thats he “be came conce rned thats he had a d u ty as Hea dS tart’s
execu t i ve dir ect or t o r epor tt hi s w r ong doi ng [s i c] t o fede r al author i t i es . ” A p p ell ee s’ B r. at 5, 39 (em p h asis ad d ed ). A fter G a rc e tti , the p a rties se e m e d to s w ap pos i t i ons t o m eett hei rr es pect i ve l i t i gat i on obj ect i ves . I n thei rr epl ybr i ef fil ed af ter G a rc e tti , defe nd ants po i nt t o the ost ensi bly“un dis pu t ed fa ctthat [M s. C as ey ’ s ] al l eged ‘ s peec h’ w as engage d i n as Super i nt endentorC E O of the H ead S t a r tp r o g r a m , n o ta s a c i t i z e n . ” A p p e l l a n t s ’ R e p l y B r . a t5 - 6 . M s . C a s e y, m eanw hi l e, now as s ert s t hati n r epor t i ng the H ead St ar tvi ol at i ons s he w as act i ng s o le ly in h e r c a p a c ity a s a c itiz e n , n o t a s a n e m p lo y e e . See A p p e llee s’ S u r-R e p ly B r . at7- 8. T h e p a rties , o f

c o u rse , ca n h a rd lyb e b lam e d fo r sh if tin g p o sitio n s in th e ir b ri efs in resp o n se to n ew p ron o u n ce m en ts of law . B u t th e u n d erly ing d isco v ery fact s canno tbe so alt ered and t heyseem cl ear enou gh t o u s t o est abli sh t hat M s. C as eyw as act i ng “pur s uantt o” heroffi ci al dut i es . B l ack’ s defi nes the r el evant t erm as m eani ng “[i ] n compl i ance w i th; i n acc or dance w i th. ” B lack’s Law D i ct i on ary 1272 ( 8t h ed. 2004) . A nd i ti s undi s put ed thatM s . C as eyw as des i gnat ed byt he B oar d as t he C E O and per s on pr i m ar i l yr es pons i bl e forthe so u n d a d m in istra tio n o f th e D istric t’s H e a d S tar t p ro g ra m . In a c c e p tin g th is as s i gnm ent , M s . C as eynece s s ar i l yas s um ed ce r t ai n r es pons i bi l i t i es , pl eas antandSee, e. g. , P r o g r a m F r a u d a n d Ci v i l Re me d i e s Ac to f 1 9 8 6 , 3 1 U. S . C. 7 § 3802 ( anyper s on w ho s ubm i t s orcaus es t o be s ubm i t t ed a c l ai m t hatt he per s on k n o ws i s fa l s e i s s u bj e c tt o a c i v i l p e n a l ty ) ; Cr i mi n a l F a l s e Cl a i ms Ac t , 1 8 U. S . C. § 2 8 7 (a n yp e rso n w h o p re se n ts to a n a g e n c ya c laim w ith k n o w led g e o f its fa lsity s hal l be i m pr i s oned and f i ned) . R ece nt l y , H H S coal es ced the var i ous fede r al s t atut es , and i t s ow n r egul at i ons , ai m ed atdet err i ng fr aud i nt o a compr ehens i ve G ra n t P o lic yS ta te m e n t. See U. S . De p a r t me n to f He a l th & Hu ma n S e r v i c e s , HHS G ran t Po li cyS tat em en t, I-7 (O ct. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ), ht tp: //w w w . acf. hhs . gov/ gr ant s / H H S_G PS_O ct_2006. doc ( l as tvi s i t ed D ec. 26, 2006) ( “A ny one w ho becomes aw ar e of the exi s t ence ( orappar entexi s t ence ) of fra u d , w aste, or ab u se re lat ed to H H S g ran ts or u se o f g ran t fu n d s sh o u ld rep o rt th is in fo rm a tio n to H H S .” ). - 13 - u n p lea sa n t, an d th e se in c lu d e d a c tin g p u rsu a n t to , o r in c o m p lian c e w ith , ce rta in fe d e ra l re g u latio n s. R u les iss u e d b yH H S e x p re ss lysta te th a t fa m ili e s w ith c h ild re n e n ro lled b yH e a d S tar t g ra n tee s m u st m e e t sp e c ific in c o m e e lig ib ili ty re q u ir e m e n ts . See 45 C . F. R . § 1305. 4 ( 2002) . T he r egul at i ons al s o i ndi cat e that “[a ] gr ant ee’ s fai l ur e t o compl yw i th [s uch el i gi bi l i ty ] r equi r ement s . . . m ay r es ul ti n a deni al of r efundi ng ort erm i nat i on. ” Id. at§ 1305. 10. Fur ther , atthe t i m e t hes e event s t ook pl ace , i ndi vi dual s , l i ke M s . C as ey , w i th know l edge of fi nanci al i r r egul ar i t i es r i s ked ci vi l and cr i m i nal l i abi l i tybyr emai ni ng s i l enti n t he fac e of s uch know l edge. I n depos i t i on, M s . C as eyeffect i vel yacknow l edged 7 t hes e fa ct s , conce di ng t hatherr es pons i bi l i t i es “as exec ut i ve di r ect or ” i ncl uded a dut yt o r eportt he D i s t r i ct ’ s noncompl i ance t o fede r al author i t i es beca us e s he “w oul d be hel d l egal l yr es pons i bl e forhavi ng know l edge of s om ethi ng thatw as w ro n g a n d n o t r e p o rt in g th a t.” A p p e lla n ts ’ A p p . a t 1 3 8 [ 5 1 :2 5 -5 2 :3 ].- 14 -

B ut t r es s i ng t he conc l us i on thatM s . C as eyact ed i n acc or dance w i th, i f not com pell ed b y , her office, she al so st at ed in sw orn t est i m on ythat herorder t o M s. Padi l l a w as ai m ed at“fi x[i ng] t he pr obl em befor e i tgotw or s e. ” Id . at147 [112: 18- 112: 20] . T hati s , M s . C as eym er el yw ant ed “t o getdi r ect i on fr om som ebo dy. . . and fi nd ou tw hat t o d o” in r epo rt i ng the D i stri ct ’s i rr egu l ari t i es. Id
. at14 1 [6 5:20-65: 21 ]. N on e of thi s suggest s ul tr a vi r es conductbutr atheran in d iv id u a l striv in g d ili g e n tlyto f u lfill a fe d e ra l re g u lato ryo b lig a tio n d ire c tly bear i ng on herbyvi r tue of the off i ce s he hel d. I ti s al s o not abl e thatM s . C as ey act ed noton herow n i n t hi s m at t er , butthoughti ts uffi ci ent l ya partof herj ob d u ties to re p o rt th e D istric t’s fin a n c ial irre g u lar iti e s to H H S th a t sh e d e e m e d it app ropri at e t o o rdera subo rdi nate, M s. P adil l a, t o co ntactH ead S t artoffi ci al s; nordi d t he l at t erbl anch a tM s . C as ey ’ s di r ect i on orgi ve anyotheri nt i m at i on t hat sh e th o u g h t sh e o r M s. C a se ym ig h t b e a c tin g b e y o n d th e sc o p e o f th e ir e m p lo ym e n t. W h il e w e fee l ob li g ed af ter G a rc e tti t o concl ude thatM s . C as ey ’ s act i ons w ere take n p u rsua n t t o h er o ffici al po sit ion , w e d o n o t m ea n to su g g est th at ev ery a g e n t w h o d isre g a rd s a p rin c ip a l’s in stru c tio n s n o t to d isc lo se in fo rm a tio n is b a r r e d f r o m s u i tb y G a rc e tti . T o th e c o n tra ry , w e a re c o n f ro n ted in th is c a se w ith a r athernarr ow erand s ubt l ers etof fa ct s i n w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff’ s j ob, as the chi ef over s eerof H ead St artfort he D i s tr i ct , i ncl uded the s ound admi ni s tr at i on of fede r al funds ; fede r al l aw di r ect ed the di s cl os ur e of a nyi rr egul ar i t i es i n the us e ofSee, e. g. , Sch alk v. G allem ore , 9 0 6 F . 2 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ); 8 C on si dine v. B d. of C ou nty C om m ’rs , 9 1 0 F . 2 d 6 9 5 , 6 9 9 -70 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ); C o n a w ay v . Sm ith , 8 5 3 F .2 d 7 8 9 , 7 9 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). - 15 - su c h f u n d s; th e p lain tiff

c o n c e d e d th a t h e r jo b d u ties re q u ire d h e r to re p o rt to fe d e ra l a u th o ri tie s ; a n d s h e a c te d in a m a n n e r c o n s is te n t w ith th is a d m is s io n . See Mc G e e v . P u b lic Wa terS up p ly , 4 7 1 F . 3 d 9 1 8 , 9 2 1 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (th e c o u rt r ej ect ed pl ai nt i ff- s upervi s or ’ s ar gum entthathe ac t ed out s i de the s cope of hi s j ob dut i es byvoi ci ng conce r ns abouta pr oj ectaft erhe w as r emoved fr om i tand af t er bei ng t ol d bys uper i or s “nott o conce rn hi m s el f” w i th anotherpr oj ectbeca us e, in tera lia , “ th e p roje c ts c le a rl yfe ll w ith in [ h is ] o v e ra ll s u p e rv is o ry d u tie s ” ). Si m i l ar l y , w e do notm ean t o s ugges tM s . C as ey ’ s s peec h r egar di ng the H ead S t a r tp r o g r a m d i d n o tr e l a t e t o a ma t t e ro f p u b l i c c o n c e rn . F a rf r o m i t . As we have he l d m anyt i m es , s peec h r eport i ng the i l l i ci tori m pr operact i vi t i es of a g o v e rn m e n t e n tity o r its a g e n ts is o b v io u sly a m a tter o f g re a t p u b lic im p o rt. W e 8
s i m pl yhol d t hatM s . C as ey ’ s s peec h, s uch as i tw as , i s m or e aki n t o thatof a sen ior ex ec u ti v e a cti n g p u rsua n t t o o ffici al du ti es th an to tha t of an o rdin ary ci t i zen s peaki ng on hi s orherow n t i m e; acc or di ngl y , M s . C as eycannotm eether bur den her e and a voi d t he hea vybarr i erer ect ed byt he Supr eme C our ti n G a rc e tti t o t he s at i s fac t i on of P i cke r i ng ’ s fi r s tpr ong. O ther c ase s to e m erg e a fter G a rc e tticonfi r m ourconcl us i on. I n G r een v . B oa rd of C ou nty C om m issi on ers , No . 0 5 - 6 2 9 7 , __ F . 3 d __ ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , we r ece nt l yfac ed a c as e i nvol vi ng a countydrug l ab empl oy ee w ho i gnor ed her- 16 -

s upervi s or s and s chedul ed conf i r m at orydrug t es t s w hen s he s us pect ed ea r l i er t es t s had gene r at ed “fal s e pos i t i ves . ” S e e id . , s l i p op. at2- 3. E ven though her conductw as “notexpl i ci t l yr equi r ed as partof herday - t o- dayj ob r es pons i bi l i t i es , ” and w as condemned byhers uper i or s , w e nonethel es s hel d that h e rF i r s tA m e n d m e n tc l a i m w a s b a rr e d b y G a rc e ttib ec au se h er a cti o n s w ere gener al l y“the type of a ct i vi t i es s he w as pai d t o do. ” Id . a t1 3 . M u c h th e s a me c a n b e sa id h e re . W h ile M s. C a se yd isre g a rd e d h e r su p e rio rs’ d ire c tio n to s uppr es s herfi ndi ngs aboutt he H ead St ar tpr ogr am, herdeci s i on t o r eportthe D i s t r i ct ’ s noncompl i ance t o fede r al author i t i es w as nonethel es s i n acc or dance w i t h ( and perhaps even a n i ndi s pens abl e partof) herj ob as the s eni oroffi ci al r es pons i bl e fort he s ound admi ni s tr at i on of the fe der al l yfunded pr ogr am she a d m in is te re d . A re c e n t E le v e n th C ir c u it d e c is io n , B a ttle v . B o a rdo f R eg e n ts , 468 F. 3d 7 5 5 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (pe r cu ri am ), fu rth er il lum inates th is po int. T h ere , the c o u rt h e ld th a t a r e lativ e lylo w -le v e l u n iv e rsitye m p lo y e e w h o re p o rte d im p ro p rie ties in a s upervi s or ’ s handl i ng of fe der al fi nanci al ai d funds w as act i ng w i thi n the s cope of herdut i es beca us e, as a fi nanci al ai d w or ker , the pl ai nt i ff ha d a dutyunder fede r al gui del i nes t o r epor tanys us pect ed fr aud as s oci at ed w i th fede r al fi nanci al a id f u n d in g . Id . at 7 6 1 -6 2 . It se e m s to u s th a t th e re sp o n sib ili tyto d e a l w ithM s. C ase yalso sp o k e to th e F B I ab o u t th e irregu lari ti es in the D istri ct’s 9 H e a d S ta rt p ro g ra m s o m e tim e in M a y2 0 0 3 . See A ppel l ant s ’ A pp. at146 [111: 11- 111: 18] . B utM s . C as eyhas fai l ed t o m eetherbur den as t he partyoppos i ng su m m a ryju d g m e n t to p o in t u s to e v id e n c e th a t th is in ter a c tio n to o k p lac e p rio r to th e a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n s a g a in st h e r o n A p ril 1 0 o r M a y8 , su c h th a t it c o u ld g iv e ri s e to lia b ility o n th e p a rt o f d e fe n d a n ts . - 17 - k n o wn mi s c o n d u c tc a n b e n o l e s s e mph a t i c whe n th e e mpl o y e e a ti s s u e i s a CEO o r S u p e rin ten d e n t an d sim ilar d isc lo su re o b lig a tio n s e x ist. 9 O p e n Me e tin gs A c t. M s . C as eyfi r s tr eport ed herconce rns aboutt he B o ard ’s fa il u re to c o m p lyw ith the N ew M ex ico O p en M ee ti n g s A ct t o the B o ard i t s el f; w hen thatpr oved unava i l i ng, M s . C as eyper s onal l yt ook the i s s ue t o the N e w M e x ic o A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. See A p p e llan ts’ A p p . at 1 3 3 ¶ 1 6 , 1 6 1 -6 3 . W ith r es pectt o M s . C as ey ’ s s t at ement s di r ect ed t o the B oar d, i ts eems t o us s i gni fi cant t hatt heyw er e made s ol el yt o hers uper i or s and M s . C as ey , as Super i nt endent , had a d u tyto p ro v id e c a n d id a d v ice a n d c o u n se l to th e B o a rd , m u c h a s a n yc o rp o ra te C E O m ig h t to h is o r h e r b o a rd o f d ire c to rs. T h is, in o u r v iew , su ffice s to p rec lud e a claim u n d er G a rc e tti . See G r een , __ F. 3d __, s l i p op. at13 (dism issi n g claim u n d er G a rc e ttieven though empl oy ee’ s conductw as not r equi r ed as a partof herj ob beca us e i tw as gener al l yof the type of c onducts he w as p aid to d o ); Mills , 4 5 2 F . 3 d at 64 8 (pre clud ing claim u n d er G a rc e tti w h ere pol i ce offi ceradvi s ed s eni orm anage r s t hatheri m m edi at e s uper i orhad made a b ad d ec isi o n , d esp it e the fa ct th at th e o fficer h ad n o d u tyto m ak e su ch a re p o rt ).See O ffi ce of t he A t t or neyG ener al , St at e of N ew M exi co, O p. N o. 90- 10 2 6 , 1 9 9 0 W L 5 0 9 5 9 6 , at * 1 (D e c . 2 0 , 1 9 9 0 ) (n o tin g th a t b a se d o n th e sta tu te in effectunt i l A pr i l 4, 2003, l ocal s chool boar ds had the s ol e author i tyt o “adopt re g u la tio n s p e rt a in in g to th e a d m in is tr a tio n o f a ll p o w e rs o r d u tie s o f th e b o a rd ,” inclu d ing m att ers related to the m an n er in w h ich b o ard m ee ti n g s w ere co n d u cted ). O u r de cisi o n o n this sco re n atura ll yco n ce rns o n lythe s u m m ary 11 j udgm entr ecor d befor e us . D efe ndant s r emai n fr ee t o tryt o es t abl i s h att r i al t hat i tw as w i t hi n t he s cope of M s . C as ey ’ s offi ce t o fi l e hercompl ai ntw i th the N ew M e x ico A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. W e e x p re ss n o o p in io n , o n e w a yo r th e o th e r, o n th e ir (c o n tin u e d ...) - 18 - T h e statem en ts m ad e to th e N ew M ex ico A tt o rne yG en era l, h o w ev er, are anotherkett l e of f

i s h. I n t he fi r s tpl ace , M s . C as eyw as nots eeki ng t o ful fi l l her resp o n sibil ityo f a d v isi n g the B o ard w h en sh e w en t t o the A tt o rne yG en era l’ s offi ce. J us tt he oppos i t e: s he had l os tfai th thatthe B oar d w oul d l i s t en t o her advi ce s o s he t ook hergr i evanc e el s ew her e. O f cour s e, M s . C as eyal s o t ook her compl ai nt s aboutt he H ead St artpr ogr am t o out s i de author i t i es . B ut , verym uch u n lik e th e a d m in istra tio n o f th e H e a d S tar t p ro g ra m th a t th e B o a rd c o m m itt e d to hercar e and pur s uantt o w hi ch s he had i ndepende ntr es pons i bi l i t i es t o the fe der al governm ent , w e have no evi dence i n the s um m aryj udgm entr ecor d befor e us s ugges t i ng t hatt he B oar d oranyotherl egal author i tyeveras s i gned M s . C as ey r es pons i bi l i t yfort he B oar d’ s m eet i ng pr act i ces . R ather , the evi dence befor e us su g g e sts th a t th e B o a rd m e m b e rs a lo n e w e re re sp o n sib le fo r m a k in g c e rta in th e ir m eet i ngs compl i ed w i t h N ew M exi co l aw at the t i m e. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude 10 th a t M s. C a se y ’s c o n d u c t fe ll su fficie n tlyo u tsid e th e sc o p e o f h e r o ffice to s ur vi ve eve n t he for ce of t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n G a rc e tti . 11( . . . cont i nued) 11 abi l i t yt o do s o. - 19 - T h e q u e stio n still rem a in s w h e th e r, at P i cke r i ng ’ s s econd pr ong, the d e fe n d a n ts h a v e a m a ss e d e v id e n c e th a t M s. C a se y ’s a c tiv iti e s w e re su fficie n tly d isru p tiv e to e lim in a te th e F irst A m e n d m e n t’s p ro tec tio n o f h e r sp e e c h . W h ile t her e i s no eas yform ul a for“w ei ghi ng” an e m pl oy ee’ s Fi r s tA m endments peec h a g a in st a n e m p lo y e r’s in ter e st in a n e fficie n t an d d isc ip lin e d w o rk e n v iro n m e n t, s ee s upr a no t e 2, on e of o ur r ecent cases , Weave rv. C havez , 4 5 8 F .3 d 1 0 9 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), p ro v id e s a u se f u l y a rd stic k fo r c o m p a riso n . T h e re w e h e ld th a t a c ity at t orney ’s patt ern of m aking co m plai nts abo ut al l eged patr on age h i res , go i ng so fa r a s c o n tac tin g a p ro sp e c tiv e a tto rn e y ’s p rio r e m p lo y e r to in q u ire a s to h is q u ali fica ti o n s, w ere n o t pro tected b ythe F ir st A m en d m en t bec au se th eyw ere di s rupt i ve t o t he mora l e of the off i ce, as w el l as t o the pr operfunct i oni ng of the h ir in g p ro c e s s . S e e id . at1103. B ycontr as t , w e have no r ecor d evi dence s ugges t i ng t hatM s . C as ey ’ s s t at ementt o the A t t orneyG ener al ’ s offi ce thr eat ened an yo f th e w o rk o f h er o ffice, th e m o rale o f th e B o ard , o r ev en the B o ard ’s s ubs t ant i ve dec i s i ons ; i ns t ead, i ts oughtonl ycompl i ance w i th a s uns hi ne l aw re q u ir in g n o tic e a n d o p p o rt u n ity fo r p u b lic c o m m e n t. E v e n if M s. C a se yh a d a p ro tec ted F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h t in sp e a k in g w ith th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’ s o ffic e , d e fe n d a n ts s u g g e s t it is c a u s a lly b e s id e th e p o in t. A s t heydes cr i be i t , t he B oar d act ed t o demot e herand di s cont i nue her- 20 -

e m p lo ym e n t pr i ort o becomi ng aw ar e of a nyconver s at i on betw een M s . C as eyand t he N ew M exi co A t t or neyG ener al ’ s offi ce. I ti s undi s put ed, how ever , thaton M a rc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 – w e ll before M s . C as ey ’ s demot i on on A pr i l 10, 2003 – the A t t or neyG ener al ’ s offi ce w r ot e t o M r . A dams, the B oar d Pr es i dent , out l i ni ng t he par t i cul ar s of M s . C as ey ’ s compl ai nt , encl os i ng a copyof the compl ai nt , and r eques t i ng a r es pons e. D efe ndant s r es pond thatt heydi d notr ece i ve the l et t er u n til A p ri l 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 , a s in g le d a ya f te r M s . C a s e y ’s A p ri l 1 0 d e m o tio n . See A ppel l ant s ’ A pp. at87. B utdefe ndant s do notexpl ai n w hyi tt ook s o l ong for t hem t o r ece i ve the l et t erand thus l eave open the pos s i bi l i tyt hata j urym i ghtnot c re d it th e ir c laim . In a n ye v e n t, w h ile it is c lea r M s. C a se yw a s d e m o ted in A p ril, t he s um m aryj udgm entr ecor d i s m uddl ed on the i s s ue w hethert he B oar d deci ded n o t to re a p p o in t M s . C a s e yo n A p ri l 1 0 o r o n M a y8 . See s upr a p p . 5 -6 . A c c o rd in g ly , at le a st b a se d o n th e fa c ts in th e re c o rd n o w b e fo re u s, a ju ryc o u ld concl ude thatM s . C as ey ’ s compl ai ntt o the N ew M exi co A t t orneyG ener al caus ed t he B oard t o p ursue atl easton e of the adv ers e em ploym ent act i on s t aken against h er. Fi ndi ng t hatM s . C as ey ’ s r i ghtt o be fr ee f r om r et al i at or yempl oym ent act i on bas ed on herpr ot ect ed Fi r s tA m endmentact i vi t i es w as pot ent i al l yvi ol at ed, w e m u st s til l as k w h e th e r th e rig h t M s. C a se ya ss e rts w a s c lea rlye sta b lish e d in l aw s uch thati tputdefe ndant s on not i ce of t he i m pr opr i etyof thei ral l eged re ta lia tio n . See Medi na , 2 5 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 8 ; supra p. 7 ( di s cus s i ng the qual i fi edT he d i stri ctcou rtden i ed sum m aryj ud gm ent on M s. C asey ’s F i rs t 12 A m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m w i thoutdi ffe r ent i at i ng among t he var i ous d e fe n d a n ts . H o w e v e r, o n e w ri n k le m a k e s th a t c o u rs e p o te n tia lly p ro b le m a tic . M s . C as eys ues notj us ti ndi vi dual s butal s o the D i s tr i cti t s el f. I n or dert o s t at e a cl ai m againsta go vernm ent ent i tyun der Sec t i on 19 83 , ho w ever, a plai nti ff m ust d em o n str ate the ex ist en ce o f a p o li cyo r cu stom p rec ipit ati n g the p lai n ti ff ’s inju ry. S e e Bd
. o

f Co u n t y Co mm’ rs v . Br o wn , 520 U . S. 397, 403- 04 ( 1997) ( ci t i ng Mon el lv. New York C i t y D ept. of Soci al Servs
. , 4 3 6 U .S . 6 5 8 , 6 9 4 (1 9 7 8 )) . B ec au se th e d istri ct co u rtap p are n tl yh as n o t y et co n side red w h ethe r M s. C ase y ’s compl ai nts at i s fi es t hi s r equi r ementw i th r es pectt o hercl ai m agai ns tt he D i s tr i ct and the i s s ue w as notbr i efe d befor e thi s C our t , w e dec l i ne t o deci de the i s s ue at t hi s t i m e, and expr es s no vi ew s on t he mat t er , buts ugges tatt ent i on t o i ton re m a n d . - 21 - i m m uni t ydoctr i ne) . T hi s w e have l i t t l e di ffi cul tyi n doi ng. I thas l ong been es t abl i s hed l aw i n t hi s ci r cui tt hatw hen a publ i c empl oy ee s peaks as a ci t i zen on m at t er s of publ i c conc ern t o out s i de ent i t i es des pi t e the abs ence of anyj ob- r el at ed re a s o n to d o s o , th e e m p lo y e r m a yn o t ta k e re ta lia to ry a c tio n . See Paradis v. Mon trose Mem ’lHosp ., 157 F. 3d 815, 818- 19 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng thatthe law in th is a re a h a s b e e n c lea rlye sta b lish e d a t lea st s in c e o u r 1 9 9 0 d e c isio n in Sc h a lk); s ee als o C ons i di ne , 9 1 0 F . 2 d at 70 0 (estab li sh ing , as o f 1 9 9 0 , that w h ere an empl oy ee c om m uni cat es “hi s conce rns di r ect l yt o per s ons out s i de the norm al chai n of comm and” a nd t he empl oy ee’ s j ob does noti nvol ve doi ng s o, the s peec h is pro tected b ythe F ir st A m en d m en t) . 12

*** T he advi ce M s . C as eydi r ect ed t o the B oar d, as hers upervi s or , i s no l onger v iable a s a b asis fo r a F ir st A m en d m en t r etali ati o n claim af ter G a rc e tti . M s. C as ey ’ s i ndi r ectr eportt o fede r al H ead St ar toffi ci al s l i kew i s e i m pl i cat ed- 22 -

r es pons i bi l i t i es s he hel d byvi r tue of he radmi ni s tr at i on of a feder al l yfunded p r o g r a m a n d t h u s c a n n o ts u p p l yth e b a s i s fo ra F i r s tAm e n d me n tc l a i m. Bu twe fi nd di ffe r enti n char act erM s . C as ey ’ s s t at ement s t o the N ew M exi co A t t orney G ener al r egar di ng al l eged vi ol at i ons of the O pen M eet i ngs A ct , vi ol at i ons that s he had no a ppar entdut yt o cur e orr eportand w hi ch w er e nots ubj ectt o her co n tr o l. W e h o ld tha t, ev en af ter G a rc e tti , a c laim b a se d o n th e se sta tem e n ts r emai ns l egal l yvi abl e, and w e r emand t he mat t erforfur therpr ocee di ngs c o n s i s t e n twi t h t h i s o p i n i o n . S O OR DE RE D.