Opinion ID: 735703
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Juanita Rigsby

Text: 30 Rigsby was employed during Gillem's administration as a senior citizens' aide but was not recommended for rehiring by Meade. Rigsby testified that she put up posters, talked to people, and displayed bumper stickers and yard signs in support of Gillem. Rigsby further stated that she advised Meade of her support for Gillem at a senior citizens' party. Meade cited budget constraints and Rigsby's lack of seniority as the reason that she was not rehired. The district court concluded that Rigsby had not introduced sufficient evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Gillem's First Amendment activities were a 'substantial' or 'motivating' factor in Meade's decision not to rehire her, and that her retaliation claim rested upon conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation. We agree. There is no evidence that Rigsby was the victim of a patronage dismissal; she has shown only that she was not rehired. We affirm the grant of summary judgment on Rigsby's claim.