Opinion ID: 201133
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kauffman Instruction

Text: 46 Defendants' initial argument is that the district court erred in refusing to give their requested instruction based on Kauffman v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co., 841 F.2d 1169 (1st Cir.1988). Kauffman was a case alleging political terminations in violation of both the First Amendment and due process rights. Here, defendants requested an instruction under Kauffman to the effect that a public employee's expectations of permanent employment as a result of holding a position for a period of time have no bearing on the illegality of his or her appointment and thus that an appointment made in violation of the regulations is necessarily null and void. The record reflects the following exchange: 47 [COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS]: Your Honor, in the case of Kauffman — Kauffman v. Puerto Rico Telephone, and I argued it is clear that an employee ignores the fact that his employment might be null and void, that doesn't go to the issue of nullity, and neither having occupied the position for some time period. It is an expectation to be kept in the position. 48 THE COURT: I think that the principles that I instructed the jury on are consistent with the case that is tried. 49 While the language referenced in the proposed instruction derives from the due process section of analysis in Kauffman, 841 F.2d at 1173 ([U]nder Puerto Rico law any property right associated with a career position is rendered null and void if a violation of the Personnel Act attends the filling of such a position.), portions of it are also applicable to a First Amendment Mt. Healthy defense. 50 The defense was entitled to an instruction that illegality of appointment was a neutral reason for corrective action, whatever the employee's subjective expectation. But the requested instruction went beyond that to suggest that a mere showing of illegality of appointment sufficed to meet their defense. Defendants overreached.