Opinion ID: 201249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Analysis of Political Discrimination Claims

Text: 30 A governmental employee who is not in a policy-making position of confidence and trust is shielded from adverse employment decisions because of the employee's political affiliation. Figueroa-Serrano v. Ramos-Alverio, 221 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.2000) (citing Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 517-19, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), and Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, 75, 110 S.Ct. 2729, 111 L.Ed.2d 52 (1990)). 9 When a plaintiff brings a political discrimination claim, she bears the burden of producing sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence from which a jury reasonably may infer that plaintiff['s] constitutionally protected conduct — in this case, political affiliation with the NPP — was a `substantial' or `motivating' factor behind [her] dismissal. Acevedo-Diaz v. Aponte, 1 F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir.1993); see also Figueroa-Serrano, 221 F.3d at 7 (citing Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)) (To prevail on a free speech claim, a public employee must show that she engaged in constitutionally-protected conduct and that this conduct was a substantial factor in the adverse employment decision.). The plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion on these issues throughout the case. 31 The defendant, of course, may offer rebuttal evidence to attempt to disprove that political affiliation played a substantial role in the adverse employment action. Additionally, even if the plaintiff establishes that proposition by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant may raise an affirmative defense: it may attempt to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff[ ] would have been dismissed regardless of [her] political affiliation. Acevedo-Diaz, 1 F.3d at 66; see also Mt. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. 568; Sanchez-Lopez v. Fuentes-Pujols, 375 F.3d 121, 124 (1st Cir.2004). In other words, even if the plaintiff has shown that her political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment decision, the defendant will not be held liable if it can persuade the factfinder that it would have taken the same course of action anyway, without regard to plaintiff's political affiliation. The Supreme Court has made clear that defendant's Mt. Healthy defense serves to prevent an employee who would have received an adverse employment decision based on legitimate reasons from being in a better position as a result of the exercise of constitutionally protected conduct than he would have occupied had he done nothing. Mt. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 285, 97 S.Ct. 568. However, if a plaintiff does not produce evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable inference that political discrimination was a substantial or motivating factor in the challenged employment action, we need not analyze defendant's Mt. Healthy defense. Accordingly, we turn now to evaluating whether plaintiff produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that her political affiliation was a substantial or motivating cause of her demotion and alleged constructive discharge.