Opinion ID: 766706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Nature of XMen's Claims

Text: 48 The essence of plaintiffs' claims is that their First Amendment and equal protection rights have been violated by the termination of their contract to provide security services at Ocean Towers and by their supposed exclusion from future such contracts. In ruling that XMen had stated claims on which relief can be granted, the district court relied primarily on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), which established that a government employee is protected from discharge in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights unless the government employer can show that it would have discharged that employee even absent his protected conduct, see 429 U.S. at 28587. The district court relied on Sheppard v. Beerman, 94 F.3d 823, for the proposition that a qualified-immunity motion could not be granted based on the face of the complaint if the complaint alleges invidious motivation. 49 XMen, which was not a government employee but an independent contractor, relies in part on Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) (Umbehr), and O'Hare Truck Service, Inc v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996) (O'Hare), in which the Supreme Court, some three months prior to the termination of XMen's Ocean Towers contract, recognize[d] the right of independent government contractors not to be terminated for exercising their First Amendment rights, Umbehr, 518 U.S. at 686, of free speech, see id. at 673-74, or political association, O'Hare, 518 U.S. at 715. XMen also argues that it had long been established that 50 to condition the availability of benefits upon [a person's] willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 ... (1963). Public employment is among the benefits that should not be so conditioned. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 ... (1972). 51 Genas v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services, 75 F.3d at 831. 52 We have considerable difficulty with these positions because they misattribute to the legislators decisionmaking roles in the contracting process and give insufficient recognition to the nature of what the legislators are actually alleged to have done. The cases relied on by plaintiffs and the district court dealt with the rights of employees or independent contractors against the government agencies that decided whether or not they would receive, or retain, public employment or contracts. The defendants in those cases were the decisionmakers. 53 In the present case, it is plain that the legislators were not the decisionmakers. Although the district court's opinion stated that the legislators were alleged to have excluded XMen from the 1994 bidding process, 983 F. Supp. at 112, and the complaint asserts that Polonetsky and King participated in the decisions to exclude XMen from the 1994 process (Complaint 48), there is no allegation in the complaint that the legislators had any authority to shape or supervise that process. Nor is there any allegation that, following the conclusion of that process, the legislators had any control over the award or renewal of contracts with respect to any given bidder. We note that the complaint does not make clear whether the decisionmakers were the private defendants, who owned and managed Ocean Towers, or DHCR, which regulated the bidding process and had the power to approve or disapprove the Ocean Towers security services contract, or the private defendants and DHCR acting jointly. For example, the complaint alleges that the 1993 contract for security services at Ocean Towers was not required to be submitted to DHCR for prior approval (Complaint 26), that the private defendants rejected all of the bids submitted during the 1994 bidding (see id. 49), and that DHCR pressure[d] the private defendants to terminate XMen's contract (id. 61); but it also alleges that DHCR--through its Commissioner--always maintains discretion and can award the bids [sic] to someone other than the lowest bidder (id. 48). What is clear from these allegations, however, is that no power to control the award of contracts resided in the legislators. 54 We note parenthetically that the district court dismissed the complaint against the State regulators on the ground that no concrete allegations were made against DHCR, and found that the concrete allegations that were made with regard to the private defendants plainly revealed that those defendants favored retaining XMen. For example, the private defendants elected to retain XMen following the expiration of the 1993 contract despite the fact that XMen did not even submit a bid in the 1994 bidding: DU and BSR recommended to DHCR that all of the bids that were submitted be rejected and that there be new bidding; and that is precisely what occurred. (See Complaint 49, 50, Exhibit A.) Thus, the persons who were the decisionmakers have been dismissed from the case on the ground that they are not alleged to have engaged in conduct that was wrongful. 55 XMen's month-to-month contract was terminated in 1996 following the 1995 bidding, in which XMen did not submit the low bid (see Complaint 64). There is no allegation that the legislators had any authority or control over which bid was accepted. Accordingly, the existence of a constitutional right on the part of XMen against Polonetsky and King is not established by cases stating that employees or independent contractors have rights against decisionmakers. 56