Opinion ID: 617640
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Challenged Hiring and Promotion Decisions

Text: Consistent with their broad understanding of political affiliation, appellants offer no evidence that the employment decisions of which they complain were motivated by the relevant sort of political animus. Conspicuously absent from the record is any evidence of a pattern of hiring or promotion in the BFD on the basis of association with a particular candidate or cause concerning government, public policy or public controversies. Of the dozens of individuals identified by the seven appellants as having been hired or promoted on the basis of a political affiliation, there is only one for which there is any record evidence suggesting that her relationship with those in power had some political element, in the relevant sense, and was not merely personal. Mary Ann McHugo was hired as a Principal Administrative Assistant in 2000. [11] Prior to joining the BFD, McHugo had been an Assistant City Auditor and office manager in the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. McHugo was active in numerous civic associations and met Mayor Menino several times before beginning her work with the City. Mayor Menino knew her father and attended his wake, and, most importantly, McHugo organized a rally for Mayor Menino at a neighborhood church. Accordingly, McHugo can be characterized as having both personal and political associations with Mayor Menino and his administration. However, this is the only political association identified by appellants among those associations cited as evidence of a pattern of political discrimination within the BFD. The presence of a single political association among dozens of personal associations does not create a material issue of fact as to whether their political neutralityrather than their lack of personal connectionswas the reason they were passed over for promotions and other employment benefits. [12] Then there is Barry's statement that defendant Moran told her that if you're not into politics little girl, then you're not into a position here. Interpreted in the context of the other evidence in the record, this statement can only refer to politics in the sense of office politics or personal connections. Nowhere does Barry allege that she was asked to take part in any political activity and refused, or that there was some public controversy in which she opposed those in power or remained neutral. Barry alleges that the person who was hired for the position she sought, Ian McKenzie, was politically affiliated with those with power and influence over the BFD. However, she does not explain the nature of that affiliation or the basis for her conclusion that it was political. There is no record evidence that McKenzie was engaged in any sort of political activity or had a political association with the administration. There is some temptation to classify Moran's alleged statement as a stray remark of the sort we have identified in previous workplace discrimination cases. A stray remark is a statement that, while on its face appears to suggest bias, is not temporally or causally connected to the challenged employment decision and thus not probative of discriminatory animus. See Meléndez v. Autogermana, Inc., 622 F.3d 46, 54-55 (1st Cir.2010). [S]tray workplace remarks ... normally are insufficient, standing alone, to establish ... the requisite discriminatory animus. Gonzalez v. El Dia, Inc., 304 F.3d 63, 69 (1st Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, in this case, Moran's remark is closely connected to one of the challenged employment decisions. Thus, the issue here is not that the statement is attenuated from the decision, but rather that, interpreted in the context of all the record evidence before us, the statement is not sufficiently suggestive of animus based on political affiliation for the Section 1983 claim to survive summary judgment. See Goldman v. First Nat. Bank of Boston, 985 F.2d 1113, 1116 (1st Cir.1993) (There is no trialworthy issue unless there is enough competent evidence to enable a finding favorable to the nonmoving party. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505)).