A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### Ju ly27,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT
STEVEN H AR VEY ; AR LEN NOR BY ; DAVI D GR I F F I T H,

P lain tiffs-C o u n ter -C laim D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants , v. M I CHAEL B AKER,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee, C I T Y O F R I O R A N C H O , a pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on, D e fe n d a n tC o u n ter c laim a n tA ppel l ee. N o. 06- 2278 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 04 - 40 1- W D S- RH S)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.-2-

Pl ai nt i ffs St even H arvey , A r l en N orby , and D avi d G r i ffi t h appea l fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof defendant s M i chae l B aker a n d t h e Ci t yo f

Ri o Ra n c h o ( “ Ci t y ” ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d A F F I R M. I. P lain tiffs a re p o lice -o ffice r e m p lo y e e s o f th e C ity ’s D e p a rtm e n t o f P u b lic Safety( “D PS”) , as w el l as m ember s and form eroffi cer s of the D epart m entof Publ i c Safe t yA s s oci at i on ( “U ni on”) . D efe ndantB akerw as form er l yt he D i r ect or of D PS. Pl ai nt i ffs br oughtcl ai m s under42 U . S. C . § 1983, al l egi ng t hat defe ndant s r et al i at ed aga i ns tt hem for e xer ci s i ng t hei rFi r s tA m endmentr i ght s of f r e e s p e e c h a n d a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e U n i o n . A f t e rt h e c l o s e o f

d i s c o v e r y, defe nd ants m ov ed fo r s um m aryj ud gm ent. T he d i stri ctcou rtgrant ed d efen dan t s’ m ot i ons and deni ed pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. O n appea l , pl ai nt i ffs cont end thatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n concl udi ng t hatt heydi d notengage i n any “s peec h, ” i n i gnor i ng t hei ras s oci at i onal cl ai m s , and i n r es ol vi ng m at er i al d isp u ted iss u e s o f

fa c t. W e r evi ew de novo a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , us i ng t he s a m e le g a l s ta n d a rd a p p lie d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . D es cheni e v. B d. of E duc. of C ent . C ons ol
. Sch. D is t . No. 22 , 473 F. 3d 1271, 1276 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) . U nder F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c) , sum m aryj ud gm ent i s approp ri at e “i f t he p l eadings, depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h t he-3-

aff i davi t s , i f any , s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to a ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law .” W e v iew a ll e v id e n c e a n d d ra w a ll r e a s o n a b le in fe re n c e s in fa v o r o f th e n o n m o v in g p a rt ie s . D e sc h e n ie , 473 F. 3d at1276. “I n cas es i nvol vi ng t he Fi r s tA m endment , an appel l at e courthas an obl i gat i on t o m ake a n i ndepende ntexami nat i on of the w hol e r ecor d i n or dert o m ake s ur e thatt he j udgm entdoes notcons t i tut e a forbi dden i nt rus i on on t he fi el d of fr ee e xpr es s i on. ” Id. (qu o tat ion o m itted). T hi s cour tappl i es a four - par tt es tt o det erm i ne w hethera publ i c empl oy er ret al i at ed ag ai nsta pu bli c em ploy ee i n v i olat i on of h i s Fir stA m end m ent r i gh t s. Fi r s t , t hi s cour tm us tdet erm i ne w hethert he empl oy ee’ s s peec h in v o lv e s a m a tter o f

p u b lic c o n c e rn . S e c o n d , if th is th re sh o ld req u ir em en t i s satisfied, th is co u rtthen b alan ce s the em p loy ee ’s i nt er es ti n comm ent i ng upon m at t er s of publ i c conc ern agai ns tt he i nt er es tof the St at e, as an empl oy er , i n pr om ot i ng t he effi ci encyof t he publ i c s ervi ces i tper for m s t hr ough i t s empl oy ees . T hi r d, i f the empl oy ee’ s i nt er es tout w ei ghs t hatof the governm ent , t he empl oy ee then m u st sho w that the s p ee ch w as a su b stan ti al fa ctor o r a m o tiv a tin g fa c to r in th e d e trim e n tal e m p lo ym e n t d e c isio n . F o u rth , if t he empl oy ee s how s t he pr ot ect ed s peec h w as a s ubs t ant i al fac t or , t he b u r d e n s h i f

t s t o t h e e mp l o y e rt o s h o w i two u l d h a v e t a k e n t h e s a me act i on agai ns tt he empl oy ee e ven i n t he abs ence of the pr ot ect ed s peec h. Id. (qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). A fter the d istri ct co u rtg ran ted s u m m ary j udgm enti n t hi s cas e, t hi s cour tcl ar i fi ed the appl i cat i on of thi s t es tw hen the p lai n ti ff all eg es re tal iat ion b ya p u b li c e m p loy er b ase d o n the e m p loy ee ’s a s s o c ia tio n w ith h is u n io n . S e e Sh ru m v . C ity o f C o w e ta , 449 F. 3d 1132, 1139 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e h e ld th a t a c o u rt sh o u ld n o t re q u ire a sh o w in g o f “ p u b lic-4-

conce r n” orengage i n j udi ci al bal anci ng of the empl oy er ’ s i nt er es tagai ns tt he empl oy ee’ s i nt er es tw hen the empl oy ee a l l eges r et al i at i on forpar t i ci pat i on i n a u n io n w ith w h ic h h is e m p lo y e r h a s s ig n e d a c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t. See i d. II. W e w i l l addr es s eac h pl ai nt i ff’ s cont ent i ons i n tur n, as t he fa ct s per t ai ni ng t o t hei ri ndi vi dual cl ai m s of r et al i at i on di ffe r . B utw e fi r s tcons i derone comm on cont ent i on of al l t hr ee pl ai nt i ffs : t hatt heyengage d i n cons t i tut i onal l y - pr ot ect ed sp e e c h b y“ re p e a ted ly[ b rin g in g ] th e ir c o n c e rn s re g a rd in g a n ti-u n io n re talia tio n to t he att ent i on of R i o R ancho Ci t yC ounci l m an [M i chae l ] W i l l i ams. ” A pl t . B r . at 2 - 3 . A l l t h r e e p l a i n t i ffs r e l y s ol el y on a bri ef ex cerptfrom M r. W i l l i am s’ depos i t i on t es t i m onyt o s uppor tt hei ral l egat i ons of havi ng engage d i n pr ot ect ed sp ee ch . H e stated that d u ri n g the tw o -y ea r pe ri o d o f 2 0 0 0 an d 2 0 0 1 , U n ion b o ard m ember s i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o, M r . H arvey , M r . N orby , and M r . G r i ffi t h, r ai s ed i s s ues w i t h hi m , w hi ch he de s cr i bed as fol l ow s : “A nt i –bas i cal l y , i tw as ant i - uni on act i vi t ybyt he chi ef, t r ans fer s . I r emem bert her e w as one i s s ue about pr om ot i ons . ” A pl t . A pp. at161- 62. M r . W i l l i ams al s o i ndi cat ed thatby“the c h ie f” h e w a s re fe rr in g to C h ie f B a k e r. Id. at162. Pl ai nt i ffs acknow l edge that M r. W il li am s’ t esti m o n yp rov ides n o d etail s reg ard ing w h at ea ch U n ion b o ard m e m b e r a c tu a lly re p o rt e d . See A p lt . B r. at 7-8 (“n o sp ec ifi c w o rds a re-5-

id e n tifie d ” ). B u t th e ya s s e rt th a t th e e v id e n c e is “ u n d is p u te d ” o n th is is s u e . See i d. a t 1 1 -1 2 . P lain tiffs m isc o n stru e th e ir b u rd e n o n su m m a ryju d g m e n t. “Pl ai nt i ffs s eeki ng t o over come a m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entm aynot r es ton m er e al l egat i ons i n t hei rcompl ai ntbutm us ts etfor t h sp e c ifi c fa c ts s how i ng t hatt her e i s a genui ne i s s ue fort r i al . ” Tr e v iz o v . A da ms , 455 F. 3d 1155, 1159 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he ques t i on fort hi s cour ton s um m aryj udgm enti s “notw hethert her e i s l i t er al l yno evi dence , butw hether t her e i s anyupon w hi ch a j ur ycoul d pr oper l ypr ocee d t o fi nd a ver di ctfort he par t ypr oduci ng i t , upon w hom t he on us of pr oof i s i m pos ed. ” A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, Inc. , 4 7 7 U . S . 2 4 2 , 2 5 1 (19 8 6 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). E vi dence r el i ed upon i n oppos i t i on t o s um m aryj udgm ent“maybe i ns uffi ci entt o cr eat e a t r i abl e fa cti f i ti s nons peci fi c orot herw i s e non- r es pons i ve, vague, concl us or y , or s el f- s ervi ng. ” P ier cy v . Ma ke ta , 4 8 0 F .3 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 7 -9 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I n Trevizo , w e affi r m ed s um m aryj udgm entagai ns tt en pl ai nt i ffs w ho fai l ed t o putfor t h depos i t i on t es t i m onyoraff i davi t s r egar di ng t he det ai l s of w hathad h a p p e n e d to th e m in su p p o rt o f th e ir § 1 9 8 3 c laim fo r v io latio n o f th e ir c iv il r i ght s . 455 F. 3d at1160. W e hel d t hatt he evi dence t heydi d pr oduce–w hi ch c o n sis ted o f

“ v a g u e , g e n e ra lize d sta tem e n ts f ro m o th e rs”

– w a s in su fficie n t to c a rr yth e irb u rd e n o n s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Id. W e not ed thatt he r ecor d w as par t i cul ar l ydefi ci enti n l i ghtof the t i m e thatt heyhad t o pr epar e thei rcas e and th e g ra n tin g o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e e v e o f tr ia l. Id. Si m i l ar l y , i n Mitch e ll-6-

v. C i t y of Moo re , 218 F. 3d 1190 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) , w e affi r m ed s um m aryj udgm ent agai ns tt he pl ai nt i ff on hi s § 1983 Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m w her e he “[fai l ed] t o s peci fi cal l ym ent i on even one i ns t ance of s peec h [he e ngaged i n] ” and as s er t ed onl yt hat“[p] l ai nt i ff e ngaged i n uni on act i vi t y . ” Id. at1199 ( quot at i on o m itted). W e reach t he sam e con cl usi on i n thi s case w i t h respectt o the pl ai nti ffs’ a lleg a tio n s o f

th e ir re p o rts o f

a n ti-u n io n a c tiv ityb yC h ief B a k e r, su p p o rte d o n ly byvague, non- s peci fi c t es t i m onyof M r . W i l l i ams. T hatt es t i m onyi s i ns uffi ci ent on i t s ow n t o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tw i t h r es pectt o anyof the in d iv id u a l p lain tiff ’s c laim s th a t he e n g a g e d i n p r o t e c t e d s p e e c h . N o t a b l y, al t hough defe ndant s ’ s um m aryj udgm entm ot i ons w er e fi l ed af t ert he cl os e of di s coveryand w i t hi n m ont hs of the s chedul ed tr i al , t her e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d fr om anyof the thr ee pl ai nt i ffs t hemsel ves –ei t heri n t he form of depos i t i on t es t i m onyorbyaff

i davi t–as t o w hathe r epor t ed t o M r . W i l l i ams and w hen he m a d e s u c h re p o rt . T her efor e, w e hol d t hatpl ai nt i ffs have fai l ed t o s uppor tt hi s cl ai m of pr ot ect ed s peec h w i t h s uffi ci entevi dence t o demonstr at e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a te ri a l fa c t. See Trevizo , 4 5 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 0 ; see also Ford v. West , 222 F. 3d 767, 777 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( aff i r m i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n T i t l e V I I cas e al l egi ng h o s t i l e w o r k e n v i r o n m e n tw h e r e p l a i n t i ff ’ s c l a i m w a s “ v a g u e a n d c o n c l u s o r y,-7-

w ith o u t re fe re n c e to sp e c ific d a tes o r c irc u m sta n c e s” ); A dlerv. Wal-MartStores , Inc. , 1 4 4 F . 3 d 6 6 4 , 6 7 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (sam e). I I I . Mr. Nor by M r . N orbyr el i es on an addi t i onal cont ent i on of pr ot ect ed s peec h and conducti n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m of r et al i at i on: hi s par t i ci pat i on i n a U ni on- s pons or ed i ni t i at i ve pet i t i on dr i ve. D ur i ng t he per i od of M ar ch thr ough M a y , 2 0 0 1 , the U n io n c a m p a ig n e d fo r a C ityc h a rte r a m e n d m e n t th a t w o u ld i n c r e a s e p a yfo rp o l i c e o ffi c e r s a n d s e tmi n i mu m s t a ffi n g l e v e l s wi t h i n DP S . At t hatt i m e, M r . N orbyw as pr es i dentof the U ni on. H e al s o pr es ent ed evi dence t hat he made publ i c s t at ement s aboutt he pet i t i on dr i ve, w hi ch w er e quot ed i n t he m e d ia . See A plt . A pp . at41 . H e t est i fi ed in hi s depo si t i on t hat C i t yoffi ci al s, in c lu d in g C h ie f

B a k e r, o p p o s e d th e U n io n ’s c a m p a ig n . Id. at49. H e des cr i bed t he pet i t i on dr i ve as a “ne got i at i ons pl oy , ” i ndi cat i ng, W e neve ri nt ended i tt o go t o a vot e. A l l w e eve ri nt ended i tforw as to g et th e c ityto ac tuallyn eg o ti ate w ith u s seriou slyab o u t m o n ey . It w as a pl oyfr om dayone, and theyw er e veryr es ent ful aboutt he w ay w e w e re h a n d lin g it. A p lee . S u p p . A p p . at 7 9 . T h e U n io n ’s p e tit io n d riv e w a s u lti m a telyu n su c c e ss f u l. M r. N o rb yc laim s th a t h e w a s d e n ied a p ro m o tio n in re talia tio n fo r h is part i ci pati on i n the pet i t i on dri ve. T hree m on t hs aft er the d ri ve en ded , i n A ug ust 2 0 0 1 , the C ityiss u e d a jo b p o stin g fo r th e p o sitio n o f L ieu ten a n t in D P S . It i sSee t he U ni form ed Servi ces E m pl oym entand R eempl oym entR i ght s A ctof 1 1994, 38 U . S. C . §§ 4301- 4334. -8- u n d i s p u t e d t h a tDPS h a d o n l yfi v e a v a i l a b l e Li e u t e n a n tp o s i t i o n s d u r i n g t h e t i me per i od r el evantt o M r . N orby ’ s cl ai m . M r . N orbyand M r . G r i ffi t h bot h t es t ed for t he pos i t i on. I n Sept ember , C hi ef Bakerpos t ed the el i gi bi l i t yl i s tforpr om ot i ons to L ie u te n a n t. M r. G ri ffith ra n k e d fo u rt h o n th e lis t a n d M r. N o rb yra n k e d s ix th . N ei t herM r . N orbynorM r . G r i ffi t h cont ends –nordi d t heypr es entany evi dence –t hatthe t es t i ng/ as s es s m entpr oces s w hi ch det erm i ned the r anki ngs for L i eutenant pr om oti on s w as unfai r orret al i at ory , or const i tuted an ad verse em p loym en t acti o n w ith resp ec t t o them . T h e fir st fo u r office rs on the listw ere pr om ot ed t o L i eut enantw i t hi n t he nextfew m ont hs –i ncl udi ng M r . G r i ffi t h, w ho w as pr om ot ed i n D ece m ber2001. A L i e u t e n a n tp o s i t i o n n e x tb e c a me a v a i l a b l e i n DP S i n J a n u a r y2 0 0 2 . At t hatt i m e the fi fth offi ceron t he el i gi bi l i t yl i s tw as on act i ve mi l i t arydut y , s o t he C ity h e ld th e p o s itio n o p e n fo r h im u n til h e re tu rn e d to h is e m p lo ym e n t w ith D P S . M r . N orbycont ended that , i n t he otheroffi cer ’ s abs ence , he s houl d have be en m oved t o t he t op of the el i gi bi l i t yl i s tand pr om ot ed. C hi ef Bakert es t i fi ed thathe bel i eved the C i t yw as r equi r ed byfede r al l aw t o hol d t he pos i t i on open fort he offi cer on m i l i t ary dut y . W hen as ked w hyhe dec i ded nott o pr om ot e M r . N orby 1 att hatt i m e, he s ai d, “I tw as bas ed on [feder al l aw ] t hatI deci ded t o pr om ot e [the fi fth offi ceron t he el i gi bi l i t yl i s t ] , orI s houl d s ayI knew I neede d t o have aT he d i stri ctcou rtheld that M r. N orbyfai l ed to est abli sh an ad verse 2 empl oym entact i on beca us e he di d nots how t hathe w as l egal l yent i t l ed t o t he pr om ot i on. E ven i f thatconcl us i on i s w r ong, w e ca n aff i r m on anygr ound i f the r ecor d i s s uffi ci entt o perm i tconcl us i ons of l aw , even gr ounds notr el i ed upon by th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . B e ll v. B d . o f C o u n ty C o m m ’rs o

f Je fferso n C o u n ty , 451 F. 3d 1 0 9 7 , 1 1 0 2 n . 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). -9- vaca ncyorI neede d t o have a pos i t i on for[hi m ] . So i tw as bas ed on that[fe der al l aw ] . ” Id. a t 7 1 . C h ie f B a k e r i n fo rm e d M r. N o rb yo f th e b a s is fo r h is d e c is io n . M r . N orbyw as ul t i m at el yt he nextoffi cerpr om ot ed t o L i eut enantw hen another openi ng fort hatpos i t i on beca m e ava i l abl e i n A pr i l 2003. M r . N orbyfi r s tar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n concl udi ng t hathe fa iled to d e m o n stra te p ro tec ted sp e e c h o n a m a tter o f p u b lic c o n c e rn in connec t i on w i t h hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he pet i t i on dr i ve. H e as s er t s t hat , beca us e he al l eged r et al i at i on bas ed on hi s pr ot ect ed r i ghtof as s oci at i on w i t h t he U ni on, u n d er Shr um h e d id n o t n e e d to s h o w s p e e c h o n a m a tte r o f p u b lic c o n c e rn . See 449 F. 3d at1139. W e nee d notr eac h t hi s i s s ue bec aus e M r . N orbyhas pr es ent ed i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o r ai s e a tr i abl e fa cti s s ue as t o t he thi r d and fourt h pr ongs o f th e fo u r- p a rt te s t fo r F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r e ta lia tio n . T he thi r d pr ong r equi r es a pl ai nt i ff t o demonst r at e an a dver s e empl oym ent a c tio n . Maest as v. Seg ura , 416 F. 3d 1182, 1188 n. 5 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . A s s um i ng 2 fo r p u rp o se s o f

th is a p p e a l th a t d e fe n d a n ts’ fa ilu re to p ro m o te M r. N o rb yin J anuary2002 w as an adve r s e empl oym entact i on, t he thi r d pr ong al s o r equi r ed hi m t o s how t hathi s pr ot ect ed s peec h orconduct“w as a s ubs t ant i al m ot i vat i ng-10-

fac t ori n t he empl oy er ’ s deci s i on t o adver s el yal t er[hi s ] condi t i ons of empl oym ent . ” Id. at1188. H e mustpr es ents uffi ci entevi dence l i nki ng t he fa ilu re to p ro m o te to h is p ri o r p ro te c te d s p e e c h a n d a c tiv ity. See i d. T her e i s no evi dence es t abl i s hi ng t hatcaus al l i nk her e–ei t herdi r ect l yorby re a so n a b le in fe re n c e . T h e e v id e n c e d e m o n stra tes th a t th e fa ilu re to p ro m o te o cc u rred at l ea st sev en m o n ths a fter M r. N o rby ’s pa rt ici p ati o n in the U n ion ’s pet i t i on dr i ve. T hus , t her e i s no i nfer ence of ca us at i on bas ed on a “ cl ose t empora l pr oxi m i t ybetw een the s peec h and cha l l enged a ct i on. ” Id. a t 1 1 8 9 . M or eover , al t hough M r . N orbypr es ent ed evi dence t hatdefe ndant s oppos ed th e p e titio n d ri v e , s ee i d. , he fa i l ed t o demonstr at e a pa t t ern of r et al i at or yconduct b e g in n in g so o n a f

ter h is p ro tec ted sp e e c h o r c o n d u c t, fro m w h ich a ju ryc o u ld i nfer t hat hi s part i ci pati on i n the dri ve w as a m oti vati ng fact or i n the adv ers e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n , s ee Marx v. SchnuckMarkets , Inc. , 76 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . I n fac t , t he evi dence demonstr at es t hatbot h M r . N orbyand M r . G r i ffi t h w er e s ubs equent l ypl ace d fai r l yon t he el i gi bi l i t yl i s tforpr om ot i on to L ieuten an t, an d that M r. G ri ffith w as q u icklyp rom o ted to that p o sit ion . W h ere M r . Gr i ffi t h wa s n o td e n i e d a p r o mo t i o n , d e s p i t e h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e s a me pr ot ect ed s peec h orconductas M r . N orby , t he evi dence fai l s t o s uppor tan in fe re n c e o f

c a u s a tio n . S e e B u rn s v . B d . o f C o u n ty C o m m ’rs o

f Ja c kso n C o u n ty , 330 F. 3d 1275, 1287 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( no i nfer ence of ca us at i on on cl ai m of re talia tio n fo r p ro tec ted sp e e c h w h e re o th e r e m p lo y e e a lso sp o k e o u t p u b licly-11-

a g a in st d e p a rtm e n t p o licie s, b u t w a s n o t term in a ted ); Mitch e ll , 218 F. 3d at1200 (no infere n ce o f c au sati o n o n claim o f re tal iat ion fo r un ion ac ti v ityw h ere em p loy ee s h ir ed to rep lace p lai n ti ff w ere p ast u n ion p reside n ts) . M os ti m por t ant l y , M r . N orbydoes notques t i on C hi ef Baker ’ s expl anat i on fo r fa ilin g to p ro m o te h im a s in s in c e re o r p re te x tu a l. See Montgom er y v. C i t y of A rdm ore , 365 F. 3d 926, 939 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( aff i r m i ng s um m aryj udgm enton Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m w her e pl ai nt i ff offer ed no evi dence t hat re a so n s g iv e n fo r e m p lo ym e n t d e c isio n w e re p re tex tu a l); D e sc h e n ie , 473 F. 3d at 1278 ( s ame) . I ns t ead, he t es t i fi ed thathe thoughtdefe ndant s ’ l egal i nt erpr et at i on w a s w ro n g : “I b e liev e th e law sa y s [ th e o ffice r o n m ili tar yd u ty ] is e n tit led to t hatpr om ot i on upon hi s r etur n t o t he depa r t m ent . I ts ay s not hi ng abouthol di ng t he p osi t i on op en w hil e he’s gon e. ” A plee. S up p. A pp . at80 -81. A nd he als o admi t t ed thatt he C i t ycoul d have pr om ot ed the otheroffi ceri n abs ent i a–w hi ch w o u ld h a v e led to th e sa m e o u tco m e a s h o ld in g th e p o sitio n o p e n . W e a re lef t, then , o n lyw ith M r. N o rby ’s sp ec u lat ion that h e w as n o t pro m o ted in Jan u ary 2 0 0 2 in re ta lia tio n fo r h is p a rt ic ip a tio n in th e p e titio n d ri v e th e p re v io u s y e a r. “Specul at i on orhunches admi ds trum orand i nnuendo w i l l nots uffi ce. ” Maes tas , 416 F. 3d at1189. N or has M r. N orbypresent ed an yevidence to r ebu tt he d efen dan t s’ evi dence t hatt heyw oul d have made the s ame deci s i on nott o pr om ot e M r . N orby in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 2 in th e a b s e n c e o f h is p ro te c te d s p e e c h a n d c o n d u c t. See O r rv.-12-

C i t y of A l buquer que , 417 F. 3d 1144, 1154- 55 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( aff i r m i ng s um m aryj udgm enton Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m w her e evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o demonstr at e genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac ton four t h pr ong) . I n t he d istric t co u rt, i n re sp o n se to C h ief B a k e r’s e x p lan a tio n w h yh e d id n o t p ro m o te M r . N orby , he as s er t ed onl yt hat“D efe ndantB akerw ents o faras t o vi ol at e the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement[“CB A ”] i n or dert o keep f r om pr om ot i ng N o rb y .” A p lt. A p p . at 2 3 . B u t h e d id n o t cite to a n ye v id e n c e to su p p o rt th is cont ent i on, even fai l i ng t o s ubm i tt he C B A i t s el f. O n appea l , M r . N orbycont ends t hat“[d] efe ndant s have ne verdi s put ed thatt hei rfai l ur e t o pr om ot e [hi m ] vi ol at ed t he [CB A ] . ” A pl t . B r . at10. O nce a gai n, he mi s cons t rues hi s bur den i n oppos i ng s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. In sh o rt, M r. N o rb yh a s fa iled to d e m o n stra te a n ym a ter ial fa c t in d isp u te regar ding his cl ai m of ret al i at i on for exerci si ng his F i rs tA m end m ent r i gh t s. Mr. G riffith M r . G r i ffi t h s pearheade d t he pet i t i on dr i ve al ong w i t h M r . N orby , al t hough u n lik e M r. N o rb y , the re c o rd is d e v o id o f e v id e n c e o f

a n ysta tem e n ts h e m a d e in c o n n e c tio n w ith th a t ac tiv ity . O n c e a g a in , w e w ill a ss u m e th a t M r. G riffith s uffi ci ent l ydemonstr at ed pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t ybas ed on hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he pet i t i on dr i ve. H e l i kew i s e cl ai m s t hathe w as r et al i at ed aga i ns tbeca us e of that a c t i v i t y , c o n t e n d i n g t h a th e wa s d e n i e d a p r o mo t i o n t o Ca p t a i n i n Ap r i l 2 0 0 3 . He d o e s n o t cla im th a t th e se lec tio n p ro c e ss b e tw e e n h im se lf a n d th e o th e r c a n d id a te-13-

w as t ai nt ed byr et al i at i on. H e as s er t s i ns t ead thatC hi ef Bakerel i m i nat ed the e d u c a tio n a l re q u ire m e n t fo r th e C a p tain p o sitio n , so th a t h e w o u ld n o t b e th e so le candi dat e el i gi bl e t o appl y . T hus , M r . G r i ffi t h cl ai m s t hatC hi ef Bakeral t er ed a l ong- s t andi ng r equi r ementforpr om ot i on t o C apt ai n i n or dert o denyhi m t hat prom oti on , i n ret al i at i on for hi s union acti vit i es. T he evi dence i ndi cat es t hat , butfort he el i m i nat i on of the educ at i onal re q u ire m e n t, th e o th e r c a n d id a te p ro m o ted to C a p tain in ste a d o f M r. G riffith w oul d nothave be en el i gi bl e t o appl yfort hatpos i t i on. C hi ef Bakert es t i fi ed that h e c h a n g e d th a t re q u ire m e n t fo r tw o re a so n s: (1 ) in o rd e r to c a rryth ro u g h c e rta in r educe d qual i fi cat i ons , w hi ch had be en negot i at ed w i t h t he U ni on, t o t he pos i t i ons of C apt ai n and D eputyC hi ef, cons i s t entw i t h t he pr ogr es s i on of qual i fi cat i ons for t he l ow erl evel pos i t i ons cover ed byt he C B A ; and ( 2) i n or dert o addr es s t he si tuati on of p oli ce offi cers dropp i ng ou tof the com peti t i ve p rom oti on al process beca us e of the bac kl og of off i cer s w ho w ant ed t o at t end the pol i ce management s chool s , buthad noty etbeen a bl e t o do s o. M r . G r i ffi t h di d notpr es entany evi dence di s put i ng C hi ef Baker ’ s s t at ed r eas ons fordel et i ng t he educ at i onal r equi r ement s . I n fac t , he t es t i fi ed thatt her e w er e w ai t i ng l i s t s fort he l i m i t ed c la s s e s . See A pl ee. Supp. A pp. at90. In th e d istric t co u rt M r. G riffith c o n ten d e d th a t th e C a p tain re q u ire m e n ts w er e cha nged i n 2003, betw een the t i m e thatt he pos i t i on beca m e ava i l abl e and w hen i tw as form al l ypos t ed–thus i m pl y i ng t hatC hi ef Bakerm ade the cha nges-14-

r eal i zi ng t hatM r . G r i ffi t h w oul d ot herw i s e be the onl yel i gi bl e ca ndi dat e. B utas t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed, t he r ecor d does nots uppor tt hatcont ent i on beca us e the undi s put ed evi dence s how ed thatt he cha nges w er e made no l at ert han N ovember6, 2001, perupdat ed D PS S t andar ds and Pr ocedur es i s s ued on that d a te . See i d. a t 2 3 1 . M r . G r i ffi t h ar gues on appea l t hatt he evi dence nonethel es s s uppor t s an i nfer ence t hatC hi ef Baker ’ s deci s i on w as r et al i at or y . H e not es t hat “[s] i gn i fi cantl y , B aker al t ered t he requ i rem ents m on t hs af t erG r i ffi t h had par t i ci pat ed i n t he pet i t i on dr i ve. ” A pl t . B r . at15- 16. A l t hough t he evi dence of t he t i m i ng of C hi ef Baker ’ s del et i on of the educ at i on r equi r ementforpr om ot i on t o C apt ai n does pl ace t hatchange cl os ert o M r . G r i ffi t h’ s al l eged pr ot ect ed act i vi t y , t her e i s s t i l l no cl os e, t empora l pr oxi m i t yt o s uppor tan i nfer ence of c a u s a tio n . See Maes tas , 416 F. 3d at1189. M or eover , M r . G r i ffi t h w as pr om ot ed t o L i eut enantw i t houti nci dentw i t hi n a mont h of the comm uni cat i on of the new C apt ai n r equi r ement s , des pi t e hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he pet i t i on dr i ve, negat i ng any in fe re n c e o f

a p a tte rn o f

re ta lia to ry c o n d u c t. I n s um , w e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tt hat“ther e i s nota s ci nt i l l a of e v id e n c e su g g e stin g th a t th e e d u c a tio n a l re q u ire m e n ts w e re c h a n g e d [ in 2 0 0 1 ] in an ti cipa ti o n o f G ri ffith ’s t esti n g fo r C ap tai n in 2 0 0 3 . ” A p lt . A p p . at 17 7 . T h ere i s s i m pl yno r eas onabl e i nfer ence t hatcoul d be made t o s uppor ta j ur yfi ndi ng t hatM r . G r i ffi t h’ s uni on act i vi t yw as a s ubs t ant i al m ot i vat i ng fac t ori n t hat-15-

d e c is io n . See Bul l i ngt on v. Uni t ed Ai rLi nes , Inc. , 1 8 6 F . 3 d 1 3 0 1 , 1 3 2 1 (10 th C ir . 1999) ( “C our t s ar e notr equi r ed t o eval uat e eve r yconce i vabl e i nfer ence w hi ch can be dr aw n fr om evi dent i arym at t er , butonl yr eas onabl e ones . ”) ( quot at i on and a lte ra tio n o m itte d ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by Nat ’ lR . R . P as s engerC or p. v. Morgan , 5 3 6 U . S . 1 0 1 (20 0 2 ). Mr. Har vey T he fa ct s al l eged byM r . H arveyi n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m di ffe rfr om t he c irc u m sta n c e s o f

th e o th e r tw o p lain tiffs’ c laim s b e c a u se h e d id n o t p a rticip a te in th e p e titio n d ri v e in 2 0 0 1 . M r. H a rv e yh a d b e e n p re sid e n t an d v ice p re sid e n t o f th e U n io n in th e late 1990s . D ur i ng t hatt i m e per i od he al s o began w or ki ng as t he C oor di nat orfort he N ew M exi co G ang Task For ce ( “Task For ce” ) . T he Task For ce w as funded by fede r al gr antm oneyand the C i t yact ed as t he fi s cal agentfort he gr ant . For se v e ra l y e a rs M r. H a rv e yw a s a ss ig n e d p rim a rilyto D P S f u n c tio n s, a n d in addi t i on he w or ked partt i m e as t he Task For ce Coordi nat or , forw hi ch he r ece i ved a s t i pend. I n 2001 he bega n w or ki ng ful l t i m e as t he Task For ce C oor di nat or . A y earl at er , t he C i t yt r ans ferr ed fi s cal agentr es pons i bi l i t yt o t he N ew M exi co D epart m entof Publ i c Safe t y . T he Task For ce a s ked thatM r . H arvey c o n t i n u e a s t h e C o o r d i n a t o r , i n d i c a t i n g i tw o u l d r e i m b u r s e t h e C i t y fo rh i s s a l a r y, st i pen d, and ben efi t s.W h ile th e A g re e m e n t w a s b e in g d ra f ted , C h ief

B a k e r in d ica ted in a n e m a il 3 t hat , as a contr actempl oy ee, M r . H arveyw oul d notbe a U ni on m emberand wo u l d t h e r e fo r e n o tb e e l i g i b l e fo rp a yr a i s e s t h a tUn i o n me mb e r s r e c e i v e d . He al s o l at ert es t i fi ed thathe di d notknow w hyt he A gr eementpr ecl uded M r . H arvey fr om bei ng i n t he U ni on bar gai ni ng uni t , butt hathe bel i eved the C i t y ’ s per s onnel p o licie s s tip u late d th a t term e m p lo y e e s c o u ld n o t b e in th e b a rg a in in g u n it. -16- T he C i t yt hen offer ed M r . H arveyan agr eementforcondi t i ons of cont i nued empl oym entas a t erm empl oy ee ( “A gr eement ”) . T he A gr eementpr ovi ded thathe w o u ld w o rk u n d e r th e su p e rv isio n o f th e T a sk F o rc e e x e c u tiv e b o a rd , b u t w o u ld cont i nue t o compl yw i t h C i t yw or k rul es and oper at i ng pr ocedur es . I tal l ow ed h im to b e re in sta ted a s a re g u lar e m p lo y e e o f th e C ityu n d e r c e rta in ci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng t he ava i l abi l i t yof a va cantpos i t i on i n D PS. C hi ef B ak er d ec ided that the A g ree m en t w o u ld n o t add ress the effe ct of M r. H arv ey ’s t erm empl oym enton hi s s eni or i t yr i ght s undert he C B A . B utt he A gr eement p ro v id e d th a t h e w o u ld n o t b e a m e m b e r o f th e U n io n b a rg a in in g u n it an d w o u ld not be el i gi bl e for any pay r ai s es author i zed by t he ci t y counci l . H e s i gned the 3 A gr eementi n A ugus t2002. D ur i ng t he t erm of the A gr eement , M r . H arveybeca m e U ni on pr es i dent agai n i n J anuary2003. C ons equent l y , C hi ef Bakeri nfor m ed M r . H arveyt hathe t houghthe w as i n br eac h of the pr ovi s i on pr ecl udi ng hi m fr om bei ng a mem berof th e U n io n b a rg a in in g u n it. C h ief B a k e r ra ise d th is iss u e w ith th e c ity a d m in istra to r, th e c itya tto rn e ya n d th e c ityc o u n c il, b u t n o a c tio n w a s ta k e n to t erm i nat e the A gr eement . C hi ef Bakernonethel es s t es t i fi ed thathe di d noti nt end-17-

t o r enew t he A gr eement , w hi ch w as s chedul ed t o expi r e byi t s ow n t erm s on J une 30, 2003, bas ed i n par ton hi s bel i ef thatM r . H arveyw as i n br eac h. B utt he r ecor d does notr efl ectw hen C hi ef Bakerm ade thi s deci s i on orw hen he c o m m u n i c a t e d i tt o M r . H a r v e y. M r . H arveycl ai m s t hathe enga ged i n pr ot ect ed s peec h i n February2003, fo r w h ich d e fe n d a n ts re talia ted a g a in st h im . S o m e tim e d u rin g th e p re v io u s m o n th he had r ece i ved a c opyof a l et t eracc us i ng C hi ef Bakerof w r ongdoi ng. T he l et t er w as s i gned byT odd Sut t erm an and ha d been or i gi nal l ys entt o t he C i t y ’ s m ay or al m os ta y earear l i eri n M ar ch 2002 ( “Sut t erm an Let t er ”) . I n hi s r ol e as U ni on pr es i dent , M r . H arveys entan emai l t o t he may oras ki ng i f ther e had be en an i nves t i gat i on i nt o t he al l egat i ons . W hen he di d notr ece i ve a r es pons e, he fo rw a rd e d th e S u tterm a n L e tter to th e C ityC o u n c il m e m b e rs a n d lo c a l m e d ia in February2003. M r . H arveyas s er t s t hati ti s undi s put ed thatC hi ef Bakerw as an g ryw ith h im o v er h is distri b u ti o n o f th e S u tt erm an L ett er. I n A pr i l 2003, M r . H arveys entC hi ef Bakera mem o, el ect i ng t o be r ei ns t at ed i n hi s r egul arpos i t i on as a det ect i ve i n D PS. H e t es t i fi ed thathe made t hi s deci s i on beca us e C hi ef Bakeradvi s ed hi m t hatD PS w oul d be atful l s t aff w ith in tw o w ee k s an d the A g ree m en t on lyp rov ided fo r his reinstatem en t i f th ere w as a vac antpos i t i on. R athert han r equi r i ng hi m t o t r ans i t i on back t o a det ect i ve po si t i on i m m ediat el y , C hief B aker al l ow ed h i m t o co nti nu e i n h i s r ole as T ask F o rc e C o o rd in a to r th ro u g h Ju n e 3 0 . In M a y , M r. H a rv e yso u g h t p e rm iss io n toW e not e thatM r . H arveydi d notm ake thi s s econd a r gum entr egar di ng an 4 (c o n tin u e d ...) -18- cont i nue hi s T as k For ce c oor di nat orr ol e as s econda r yempl oym ent . C hi ef Baker appr oved thatr eques t , w i t h t he condi t i on perdepart m entpol i cyt hathe coul d not u se D P S e q u ip m e n t. M r. H a rv e yd isa g re e d w ith th a t co n d iti o n , b u t h is re q u e st to arb itrate w as d en ied b ythe C ity . H e the n fil ed an ap p li ca ti o n fo r a p reli m inary inju n c tio n in sta te c o u rt c h a llen g in g th e c o n d iti o n , w h ich th a t co u rt u lti m a tely di s m i s s ed. Forpurpos es of thi s appea l , w e as s um e w i t houtdeci di ng t hatM r . H arvey e n g a g e d in p ro tec ted sp e e c h b yc irc u latin g th e S u tterm a n L e tter. O n a p p e a l, M r. H arveycl ai m s that he suffered t w o ad verse em ploym ent act i on s: Fi r s t , B akerfor ced H arveyi nt o an empl oym entcontr act( for goi ng a ci t ypayrai se and sen i ori t yri gh t s) i n o rdert o m ai ntai n h i s [T ask F o rc e ] p o sitio n . T h e n , a y e a r la ter , B a k e r to ld H a rv e yth a t h e w o u ld notr enew t he [A gr eement ] ( beca us e H arveyw as t he uni on pr es i dent ) . B akers ubs equent l yfor ced H arveyt o choos e betw een c o n tin u in g a s a D P S e m p lo y e e o r a n e m p lo y e e o f th e [ T a s k F o rc e ]. T hes e ar e adve r s e empl oym entact i ons and s houl d have pr ecl uded su m m a ryju d g m e n t. A pl t . B r . at14. T he fi r s tal l eged a dver s e empl oym entact i on–“for ci ng” M r . H arveyt o ent eri nt o t he A gr eementi n 2002–occurr ed s even mont hs befor e he ci r cul at ed the Sut t erm an Let t er , and ther efor e coul d nothave be en i n r et al i at i on for hi s exerci se of F i rs tA m end m ent r i gh t s. N orhas he pr es ent ed evi dence t o s uppor thi s s econd a l l egat i on of an adver s e empl oym ent act i on. T her e i s evi dence t hatM r . B akerques t i oned 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . See A pl t . A pp. at19 ( ar gui ng th a t h is d e m o tio n f

ro m lieu ten a n t to d e tec tiv e , ina b ili tyto re tes t fo r lieu ten a n t, an d reli n q u ishm en t of sen iori tyri g h ts an d b arg ainin g u n itm em b ersh ip, w ere adver s e empl oym entact i ons ) . O r di nar i l y , w e w oul d concl ude thathe has w ai ved h is ri g h t to ra is e th is is s u e o n a p p e a l. See Walkerv. Mather ( In re Walker

) , 9 5 9 F .2 d 8 9 4 , 8 9 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (d e c lin in g to c o n sid e r iss u e n o t ra ise d in d istric t co u rt). B u t b e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt a d d re ss e d th e iss u e a n d h e is re sp o n d in g to th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n , w e a d d re ss th e m e rits o f th e a rg u m e n t. -19- w hethert he A gr eementperm i t t ed M r . H arveyt o be U ni on pr es i dent , but defe ndant s di d nott erm i nat e the A gr eementand he s erved outhi s t erm as U ni on pr es i dent . A l t hough C hi ef Bakert es t i fi ed thathe di d noti nt end t o r enew t he A gr eement , t he r ecor d does notr efl ectw hen he made thatdeci s i on orw hen he c o m m u n ic a te d it to M r. H a rv e y . M r. H a rv e ya rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t “a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n ” is lib e ra lly con strued i n the con t ext of a F i rs tA m end m ent r et al i at i on cl ai m . B ut there m ust be s om e ac t i on by the employer t hat i s advers e to th e e m p lo y e e . See Baca v. Sklar , 398 F. 3d 1210, 1220 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( “A n empl oy ee a l l egi ng r et al i at i on m ustshow t hat hi s em ploy er t oo k som e adv ers e em ploym ent act i on against h im . ”). W e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rtthat reg ard less o f C h ief B ak er’s i nt ent i ons w i t h r es pectt o r enew al of the A gr eement , t hati s s ue bec ame m ootw hen M r. H a rv e ye lec ted to re tu rn to re g u lar e m p lo ym e n t w ith in D P S . A d d re ss in g h is deci s i on t o t r ans ferback t o hi s det ect i ve pos i t i on w i t hi n D PS, he t es t i fi ed: I onl ydi d s o aft erm eet i ng w i t h M i ke B akerand bei ng advi s ed that t her e w as no l ongergoi ng t o be anyopen s t aff i ng pos i t i ons . I t hi nk wh e n we me t , h e s a i d a c tu a l l yt h a twe wo u l d b e f u l l s t a ff wi t h i n t wo-20-

w e e k s, a n d th a t’s b a sic a llyw h a t u rg e d th is p ro m p tin g is th a t, i n k e e p in g w ith th e w o rd in g in th e c o n tra c t, th a t I c o u ld o n lyg o b a c k if t her e w as , i n fac t , an open pos i t i on. A pl ee. Supp. A pp. at320. N ot abl y , M r . H arveydi d nott es t i fyt hathi s deci s i on hi nged on C hi ef Baker ’ s i nt ent i ons r egar di ng r enew al of the A gr eement . A s t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded, t he evi dence s how ed thathe made t hatdeci s i on i n or der to a v o id th e ri s k o f

lo s in g h is p o s itio n w ith D P S . T h e e v id e n c e , m o re o v e r, d o e s n o t su p p o rt M r. H a rv e y ’s c o n ten tio n th a t h is deci s i on t o i nvoke hi s r i ghtundert he A gr eementt o s eek r ei ns t at ementw as an a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n im p o s e d u p o n h im b yd e fe n d a n ts . See Exum v. U. S. Ol y mp i c Co mm. , 3 8 9 F . 3 d 1 1 3 0 , 1 1 3 5 -36 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (r ejec ti n g p lai n ti ff ’s at t empt t o r eca s thi s vol unt arydeci s i on t o r es i gn as cons t ruct i ve di s char ge amount i ng t o adver s e empl oym entact i on) . Fi nal l y , t he evi dence al s o does not su p p o rt h is c o n ten tio n th a t h e w a s “ fo rc e d ” to c h o o se b e tw e e n e m p lo ym e n t w ith th e C itya n d c o n tin u in g to w o rk fo r th e T a sk F o rc e , b e c a u se th e C itya p p ro v e d h is a p p lic a tio n fo r s e c o n d a ry e m p lo ym e n t a s th e T a s k F o rc e C o o rd in a to r. A c c o rd in g ly , M r. H a rv e yh a s fa iled to d e m o n stra te a m a ter ial fa c t in di s put e r egar di ng w hetherhe s uffe r ed an a dver s e empl oym entact i on i n r et al i at i on for exerci si ng his F i rs tA m end m ent r i gh t s. I V. B eca us e no mat er i al fac t s ar e i n di s put e r egar di ng t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s of r et al i at i on forexer ci s e of thei rFi r s tA m endmentr i ght s , t he j udgm entof the-21-

di s t r i ctcour tand the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on for r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a r e AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m ot hyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge