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

Heading: Appellants' Use of the Label Political

Text: On its face, appellants' claim that they were penalized for their lack of political support for, or association with, those in power in the BFD and Boston city government would seem to fall within the scope of the First Amendment's protection. However, a review of the record reveals that the associations identified by appellants as the basis for the challenged employment decisions are personal, not political, in nature. While appellants consistently apply the label political to the decision-making process that resulted in the challenged adverse employment actions, they use this adjective to refer to office politics and interpersonal relationships rather than the conduct of government, public policy or public controversies. In appellants' parlance, any connection to a city official or powerful figure within the BFD is a political connection or affiliation. For example, appellants assert that a friendship with the mayor's wife, dating someone who works in a city councilor's office, being the son-in-law of the mayor's right-hand-man, and living on the same block as a BFD chief are all political connections. Notably, appellants do not allege, for example, that they are members of a rival political party, that a divisive political issue created a rift between appellees and themselves, or that they were asked for campaign contributions or to engage in other political activity. Furthermore, despite references in interrogatory responses to political power struggles within the BFD, none of the appellants offer evidence of power struggles concerning the conduct of government, public policy or public controversies. In fact, multiple appellants acknowledged in deposition testimony that, despite the label political, the associations and connections they complain of are personal in nature. Barry stated that [t]here's always political cliques in any agency.... It's just whoever is the administration head at that time, usually has their little, you know, circle that they make sure that they take care of their friends. Similarly, Kane noted that another BFD employee was hired because she was the recent widow of a firefighter and the department wanted to help her out. Kane viewed this as an example of political affiliation discrimination, but said that she did not object to it because it was for a good cause. Most tellingly, McDonough explained that  our parties aren't politically affiliated. You're affiliated through who you know, so it doesn't mean that your political affiliation is saying that you're in the Democratic Party or the Republican party. It's saying that you're affiliated through who you know. Later in the same deposition, McDonough explained how one comes to be affiliated with the neighborhood-based factions that all of the appellants identified within the BFD and the City of Boston: Q: Are you saying that everyone in Hyde Park is politically connected to Mayor Menino? A: No. Q: Are you saying that you have to live in Hyde Park in order to be politically connected to the Hyde Park Group? A: No. Q: So what are you saying? A: You just have to know them and bewhether you're a relative or a friend or. Q: That would apply to the South Boston Group as well? A: Yes. Accordingly, McDonough's use of the term political affiliation is properly understood to refer to friendships and familial relationships with influential people, a usage that is common to all of the appellants.