Opinion ID: 2799297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: First Amendment Retaliation

Text: [¶26] FIWN claims that the issuance of the CCO was an act of retaliation by DEP against the neighbors. In order to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, “the claimant must show a deprivation of a right secured by federal law, statutory or constitutional, and that the deprivation was achieved under color of state law.” Wyman v. Sec’y of State, 625 A.2d 307, 310 (Me. 1993). FIWN argues 14 that the court erred by dismissing its First Amendment retaliation claim, pursued as an independent claim in the Rule 80C proceedings. We review constitutional issues de novo. Light v. D’Amato, 2014 ME 134, ¶ 17, 105 A.3d 447. [¶27] To establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, FIWN must show that: “(1) [it] engaged in constitutionally protected conduct, (2) [it] was subjected to an adverse action by [DEP], and (3) the protected conduct was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse action.” D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 43 (1st Cir. 2012). The parties agree that FIWN engaged in constitutionally protected conduct when it complained to DEP about the excessive noise. FIWN’s claim fails, however, because there was no adverse action taken by DEP against FIWN that would deter the latter from further exercising its constitutional rights. Id. at 44 n.11. The CCO is binding on Fox Island, not on FIWN. It does not require FIWN to take or refrain from taking any particular action or otherwise divest FIWN of any right or privilege established by law. FIWN and the individuals who make up the group continue to have the unfettered right to petition DEP to respond to noise violations or any other alleged violation of DEP standards by Fox Island. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded to the Superior Court for dismissal of the complaint. 15 On the briefs: Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Gerald D. Reid, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellants Department of Environmental Protection and Patricia Aho Catherine R. Connors, Esq., and Nolan L. Reichl, Esq., Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, for appellant Fox Islands Wind, LLC Rufus E. Brown, Esq., Brown & Burke, Portland, for crossappellants Fox Islands Wind Neighbors, et al. David G. Webbert, Esq., and Roberta L. de Araujo, Esq., Johnson, Webbert & Young, LLP, Augusta, for amicus curiae Maine Employment Lawyers Association Zachary L. Heiden, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, Portland, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Maine At oral argument: Gerald D. Reid, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants Department of Environmental Protection and Patricia Aho Catherine R. Connors, Esq., for appellant Fox Islands Wind, LLC Rufus Brown, Esq., for cross-appellants Fox Islands Wind Neighbors, et al. Kennebec County Superior Court docket number AP-2011-42 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY