Court Opinion

ID: 9469605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:45:03.914615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:28.523796
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
First, I think it important to emphasize that whether maintenance of an apolitical stance, in and of itself, constitutes protected first amendment activity has been assumed here and is uncontested. Judge Pell’s opinion for the panel does not decide this question.
Second, despite Judge Pell’s extremely able arguments to the contrary (reinforcing Judge Ackerman’s conclusions), I believe that there was minimal, though sufficient, evidence upon which the jury could have concluded that McClure’s apolitical attitude was a motivating factor in his discharge. I agree with Judge Pell, however, although the question is close, that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that McClure would not have been fired but for his protected activity.
Third, I concur fully — and this is the strongest ground upon which we stand — in Judge Pell’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that Cywinski caused McClure’s discharge.
With these exceptions and additional comments, I join Judge Pell’s careful and persuasive opinion for the panel.