Opinion ID: 3010827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deposition Testimonies of Commissioners

Text: In his deposition, Cranmer, one of the new Republican Commissioners on the Board, testified that the position of Deputy Director did not require a certain political affiliation: 7 Q. If you were listing requirements for the deputy director of marketing and communications at the aviation department, would affiliation with one political party or another be a requirement for that? A. No. Q. Would support of one candidate in the last election or not -- A. No. Q. You've got to let me finish. Would support of one candidate in the last election be an appropriate requirement for the position of deputy director of marketing and communications? A. No. Mr. Cranmer further testified that there was no rational connection between political affiliation and the position of Deputy Director, contradicting the defendants' answers to interrogatories on this issue. Mr. Cranmer stated in no uncertain terms that he did not agree with the fact that a political affiliation has anything to do with this job, has nothing to do with it. Michael Dawida, the lone Democratic Commissioner on the Board, provided similar testimony: Q. Commissioner, does the position of deputy director of marketing and communications for the Department of Aviation require that a person have a certain political affiliation? A. No. Absolutely not. Q. Does the fact that one is either a Democrat or Republican affect that person's ability to do the job? A. Absolutely not. Q. Does the fact that the person in that position supported one political party of the other political party affect his or her ability to do the job? A. No. 8 Q. Does the fact that the person in that position supported one candidate over another in a prior election affect his or her ability to do that job? A. No. Confronted with seemingly strong evidence that Boyle's position allowed him to have meaningful input into significant issues affecting the county, on the one hand, and the deposition testimonies, on the other, the district court chose the former, and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment: [T]he undisputed facts demonstrate that plaintiff 's duties as Deputy Director were of broad scope, that plaintiff acted as an advisor to policymakers and that plaintiff participated in discussions and other meetings with policymakers and had the authority in some instances to act and speak on behalf of policymakers. The Court, therefore, finds as a matter of law that the duties inherent in the position of Deputy Director are such that political ideology is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of that position. Accordingly, terminating plaintiff from the Deputy Director position because of plaintiff 's political affiliation would not offend the First Amendment. Memorandum Op. at 19. The significance of the deposition testimonies of Cranmer and Dawida was disposed of in a footnote as follows, in its entirety: Plaintiff's reliance on the deposition testimony of two County Commissioners, that is, Cranmer and Dawida, in that those individuals testified that party affiliation is not an appropriate requirement for the Deputy Director position does not affect the Court's conclusion. In light of the undisputed evidence regarding plaintiff's authorized and actual duties as Deputy Director, the Court finds that the cited deposition testimony does not create a genuine issue of material fact. See Armbruster v. Unisys Corp., 32 F.3d 768, 777 (3d Cir. 1994) (There must be sufficient evidence for a jury to return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party; if the 9 evidence is merely colorable or not significantly probative, summary judgment should be granted.). Id. at 20 n.7. Had the district court been sitting as the finder of fact, we would have little trouble in affirming its decision. However, at the summary judgment stage, the district court improperly weighed conflicting evidence in granting the defendants' motion. The deposition testimonies of two of the three members of the Board of Commissioners, which constituted the relevant hiring authority in this case, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the position of Deputy Director of the Department of Aviation was subject to the Elrod/Branti exception. Accordingly, this court is constrained to reverse the district court's decision and remand for further proceedings.