Opinion ID: 3039722
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Retaliation for filing federal lawsuit

Text: Shawn Meenan also contends that defendants Traister and Foose retaliated against him for filing this federal lawsuit. As the district court correctly determined, the filing of a lawsuit is a constitutionally protected activity.3 See Foraker, 501 F.3d at 236. Therefore, we must determine whether that act by Meenan was a substantial or motivating factor in the alleged retaliatory conduct. A public employer engages in unconstitutional retaliation “when it makes decisions, which relate to promotion, transfer, recall and hiring, based on the exercise of an employee's First Amendment rights.” Brennan v. Norton, 350 F.3d 399, 419 (3d Cir. 2003). Actions that are “de minimis or trivial,” however, do not violate an employee’s First Amendment rights. Id. The court must determine whether the alleged acts of 3 The defendants concede that this activity is protected by the First Amendment. 12 harassment were “sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights.” Suppan v. Dadonna, 203 F.3d 228, 235 (3d Cir. 2000). The parties do not dispute that Foose pulled a callbox when no emergency existed. Foose argues that he pulled the callbox to test Meenan’s response time. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Meenan, Foose’s action, while inappropriate, was de minimis and not part of a continuing course of conduct. Therefore, it did not violate Meenan’s First Amendment rights. See Brennan, 350 F.3d at 419; see also McKee v. Hart, 436 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding that supervisor’s critical statements and reprimands did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation). Additionally, Meenan failed to provide any evidence showing that Foose was motivated by Meenan’s protected activity; instead, he simply asserts that a jury could conclude that the lawsuit was a motivating factor in Foose’s actions. We reject this conclusory allegation and conclude that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of defendant Foose. Similarly, Meenan has failed to offer evidence demonstrating that Traister took retaliatory action against him. Meenan argues that Traister aided and acquiesced in Foose’s actions. Futher, Meenan has not submitted evidence demonstrating that Traister’s conduct was motivated by Meenan’s protected activity. We conclude that Meenan has failed to show that Traister’s actions rise to the level of a constitutional violation, see Brennan, 350 F.3d at 419; McKee, 436 F.3d at 171; therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Traister, as well. 13