Opinion ID: 788670
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Speech as a substantial or motivating factor.

Text: 41 This brings us to the third step in our testing. On the question whether Herrera's speech was a motivating factor for his punishment, the district court emphasized that the Hospital had essentially conceded this point in its Trial Brief when it stated: If Plaintiff Herrera had removed the button from his uniform on any of the numerous occasions he was asked to do so by his supervisors, he would not have been disciplined. 53 Furthermore, noted the district court, other circuits have concluded that refusing to obey an order that implicates an employee's First Amendment rights is not a sufficient reason for disciplining the employee. 54 And, the lack of disciplinary action meted out to employees who knuckled under and removed their buttons demonstrates beyond cavil that the continued wearing of the button in violation of the dress code was at least a motivating factor behind Herrera's discipline, notwithstanding the Hospital's strenuous contentions to the contrary. After all, the only employee disciplined was Herrera, who was the only employee who continued to wear the button. 55 42 But even if we concede arguendo that insubordination too was a cause of the adverse employment action (which we address more fully below), none can contend, at least not in full candor, that insubordination was the sole reason. Stated differently, the record evidence establishes beyond peradventure that Herrera's protected speech was also a (if not the ) motivating factor. 43