Opinion ID: 2771327
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the farewell

Text: The first time this case was before us, we expressed outright our appreciation that the workers' allegations, as set out in their complaint, unquestionably describe[d] a plausible discriminatory sequence that is all too familiar in this circuit. Ocasio-Hernández, 640 F.3d at 19. For laundry room workers, and maintenance staff, and warehouse employees -- who have no direct say in or influence on the policies of the government by which they are employed -- to face recurring fear that their livelihood will be pulled out from under them every time the state sees a change in leadership is, to say the least, a sad state of affairs. As the district court judge suggested, perhaps the workers here were unable to prove their case because they were stymied by the mechanics of litigation deadlines. Or perhaps the facts of their case simply didn't stack up. But unlike our assessment of the sufficiency of a complaint, where we take the veracity of the allegations at face-value, once summary judgment rolls around, the proof is in the pudding. For the reasons discussed above, we affirm both summary judgment dismissals of the workers' First Amendment claim, as well as the denial of their motion to reconsider. -19-