Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/21

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1428

DAVI D PI ERCE,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

COTUI T FI RE DI STRI CT; BOARD OF FI RE COMMI SSI ONERS OF THECOTUI T FI RE DI STRI CT; DONALD CAMPBELL, Fi r e Commi ssi oner of t heCotui t Fi r e Depar t ment , RONALD MYCOCK, Fi r e Commi ss i oner of t heCot ui t Fi r e Depar t ment ; PETER FI ELD, Fi r e Commi ssi oner of t he

Cotui t Fi r e Depart ment ; CHRI STOPHER OLSEN, Fi r e Chi ef ,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Dougl as P. Woodl ock, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or eLynch, Chi ef J udge,

St ahl and Howar d, Ci r cui t J udges.

Har ol d Li cht en, wi t h whom Sar a Smol i k and Li cht en & Li ss-Ri or dan, P. C. wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Mar i el i se Kel l y, wi t h whom Edwar d R. Gar gi ul o and Gar gi ul o/Rudni ck, LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees Cot ui t Fi r e Di st r i ct ,Boar d of Fi r e Commi ssi oner s of t he Cot ui t Fi r e Di st r i ct , Donal dCampbel l , Ronal d Mycock and Pet er Fi el d, Fi r e Commi ss i oner s of t heCot ui t Fi r e Depar t ment , and Chr i st opher Ol sen, Fi r e Chi ef .

J anuar y 28, 2014


2/21

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Pl ai nt i f f - appel l ant Davi d Pi er ce,

f or mer Capt ai n of t he Cot ui t , Massachuset t s Fi r e Depar t ment ,

br ought a compl ai nt agai nst t he Depar t ment , t he Fi r e Chi ef , and t he

Boar d of Fi r e Commi ssi oner s, al l egi ng pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on i n

vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st Amendment and 42 U. S. C. 1983,

whi st l ebl owi ng r et al i at i on i n vi ol at i on of t he Massachuset t s

Whi st l ebl ower Act , and t or t i ous i nt er f er ence wi t h cont r act ual

r el at i ons. The di st r i ct cour t ent er ed summar y j udgment i n f avor of

t he def endant s on al l count s. Because we concl ude t hat t he

def endant s have pr esent ed l egi t i mat e, busi ness- r el at ed gr ounds f or

t hei r empl oyment deci si ons and because Pi er ce has f ai l ed t o

demonst r at e that t he pr of f er ed expl anat i ons are pr et extual , we

af f i r m.

I. Facts

The Cot ui t Fi r e Depar t ment i s a r el at i vel y smal l

oper at i on. I n r ough or der of seni or i t y, t he Depar t ment has f i ve

"cal l " f i ref i ght ers , s i x f ul l - t i me f i ref i ght ers , t hree Li eut enant s ,

one Capt ai n, and one Fi r e Chi ef . The Depart ment al so has a

t hr ee- member Boar d of Fi r e Commi ssi oner s ( " t he Boar d") , whi ch i s i n

char ge of over seei ng, appoi nt i ng, and t er mi nat i ng per sonnel . At

t he t i me of t he r el evant event s, t he Capt ai n of t he Cot ui t Fi r e

Depart ment was Davi d Pi erce. Si nce March of 2008, t he Fi r e Chi ef

has been def endant Chr i st opher Ol sen. Unt i l November of 2009, t he

Fi r e Commi ssi oners were def endants Donal d Campbel l , Ronal d Mycock,

-2-


3/21

and Pet er Fi el d. I n November , Donal d Campbel l r esi gned and was

r epl aced by Br enda Nai l or .

A. I nt er - Depar t ment al Rel at i onshi ps

I n t he decades l eadi ng up t o t he f al l of 2009, t he Cot ui t

Fi r e Depar t ment was t he home of some f ai r l y compl i cat ed per sonal

hi st or i es. As Capt ai n of t he Depar t ment , Pi er ce ser ved di r ect l y

over hi s wi f e, J ayne Pi er ce, who was a f ul l - t i me f i r ef i ght er

t hr ough t he maj or i t y of t hei r r el at i onshi p. Pr i or t o hi s mar r i age

t o J ayne, Pi erce had been marr i ed t o Donna Pi erce ( now Donna

Fenner ) , who had been a cal l f i r ef i ght er at t he t i me, but had

subsequent l y j oi ned t he Depar t ment as a f ul l - t i me f i r ef i ght er and

mar r i ed f el l ow f i r ef i ght er Scot t Fenner . Fenner ' s own ex- wi f e, Amy

Gr i f f i n Fenner , i s al so a cal l f i r ef i ght er . Ther e was t est i mony

t hat t hi s pat t er n of i nt r a- depar t ment al r el at i onshi ps made t he

Cotui t Fi r e Depart ment t he subj ect of mockery among nei ghbor i ng

depar t ment s, f r equent l y t o t he const er nat i on of t he Depar t ment ' s

own empl oyees. Si nce t he 1990s, f i r ef i ght er s and of f i cer s i n t he

depar t ment had di scussed i mpl ement i ng a st r i ct er pol i cy r egar di ng

domest i c r el at i onshi ps, t hough no ear l y di scussi ons mat er i al i zed

i nt o a new pol i cy.

Fol l owi ng t hei r mar r i age, Davi d and J ayne Pi er ce wer e

never schedul ed t o wor k t he same r egul ar 24- hour shi f t . They di d,

however , work t ogether wi t h some r egul ar i t y when t hey r esponded t o

emer gency cal l s or when one of t hem vol unt eer ed t o subst i t ut e f or

-3-


4/21

an unavai l abl e f i r ef i ght er on t he ot her ' s r egul ar shi f t . Dur i ng

t hese t i mes, Pi er ce di r ect l y super vi sed hi s wi f e. I n Mar ch 2008,

Pi er ce wr ot e t he Massachuset t s St at e Et hi cs Commi ss i on ( "Et hi cs

Commi ssi on") t o request an advi sory opi ni on r egar di ng any pot ent i al

conf l i ct of i nt er est ar i s i ng out of hi s pr of essi onal r el at i onshi p

wi t h J ayne. On March 31, 2008, t he Et hi cs Commi ss i on advi sed hi m

t hat t he st at e et hi cs l aw, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, 19,

prohi bi t ed hi m f rom part i ci pat i ng i n hi s wi f e' s super vi s i on,

per f or mance eval uat i ons, or pr omot i ons, or i n set t i ng her

compensat i on. The Commi ssi on r ecommended t hat he wr i t e t he Board

of Fi r e Commi ssi oner s t o di scl ose the si t uat i on and obt ai n a f or mal

exempt i on, but Pi erce chose not t o pur sue t he mat t er .

Fol l owi ng hi s communi cat i on wi t h t he Et hi cs Commi ss i on,

Pi er ce became di r ect l y i nvol ved i n hi s wi f e' s empl oyment on at

l east t hr ee occasi ons. Fi r st , i n t he f al l of 2008, Pi er ce advi sed

Chi ef Ol sen agai nst i mposi ng a pr obat i onar y per i od on t he t enur e of

new Li eut enant s at a t i me when J ayne was about t o become a

Li eut enant . Second, Pi erce advi sed Ol sen t hat a new Emergency

Medi cal Ser vi ces posi t i on shoul d go t o a t r ai ned par amedi c when

J ayne was t he onl y t r ai ned paramedi c i n t he Depar t ment . Fi nal l y,

i n Apr i l of 2009, Pi er ce assi st ed i n a di sci pl i nar y i nvest i gat i on

i nvol vi ng J ayne' s ver bal al t er cat i on wi t h a subor di nat e

f i r ef i ght er . Al t hough Pi er ce had a r i ght t o r ecuse hi msel f and

al t hough J ayne speci f i cal l y r equest ed t hat he do so, Pi er ce chose

-4-


5/21

t o par t i ci pat e af t er Ol sen i ndi cat ed t hat he desi r ed Pi er ce' s i nput

i n t he hear i ng. Pi er ce r ecommended t hat J ayne r ecei ve a counsel i ng

sessi on as puni shment . However , Ol sen ul t i matel y deci ded t o demote

J ayne f r om Li eut enant t o f i r ef i ght er .

I n Mar ch of 2009, r oughl y a year af t er hi s appoi nt ment as

Fi r e Chi ef and j ust bef or e J ayne' s di sci pl i nar y i nvest i gat i on,

Ol sen ci r cul at ed a new "Fami l i al Rel at i ons Pol i cy" f or t he

Depar t ment . Among ot her t hi ngs, t he pol i cy f or bade of f i cer s f r om

wor ki ng r egul ar shi f t s wi t h or di r ect l y super vi si ng t hei r f ami l y

member s. Af t er t he pol i cy was ci r cul at ed, Pi er ce and J ayne sought

l egal counsel r egar di ng t he pol i cy' s r eper cussi ons f or t hei r

careers.

I n August of 2009, i n r esponse to J ayne' s obj ect i ons t o

her demot i on f r om Li eut enant , Ol sen i ni t i at ed ef f or t s t o

i nvest i gat e an al l egedl y "host i l e envi r onment " i n t he Cot ui t Fi r e

Depar t ment . Fi ve f ul l - t i me f i r ef i ght er s submi t t ed compl ai nt s of

harassment or i nt i mi dat i on by the Pi erces when t hey were on dut y.

B. The Wool Campai gn

I n Apr i l 2009, Donal d Campbel l ' s seat on t he Boar d came

up f or r e- el ect i on. Campbel l ori gi nal l y r an f or r e- el ect i on

unopposed. Concer ned about a pot ent i al conf l i ct of i nt er est

cr eat ed by Campbel l ' s st at us as an act i ve uni on f i r ef i ght er ,

however , Pi er ce act i vel y encour aged Wi l l i amWool t o ent er t he r ace

as a wr i t e- i n candi dat e.

-5-


6/21

At Pi erce' s r equest , Commi ss i oner Mycock agr eed t o meet

wi t h Wool t o di scuss Wool ' s i nt er est i n servi ng on t he Boar d.

Mycock di d not di scour age Wool f r omr unni ng and, whi l e he di d not

t ake a posi t i on on Wool ' s candi dacy, he agr eed t hat Campbel l ' s

uni on t i es cr eat ed a conf l i ct of i nt er est . Mycock' s concer ns wer e

echoed by Commi ssi oner Fi el d, al t hough Fi el d di d not t ake a publ i c

posi t i on on Wool ' s campai gn ei t her . Mycock di d have Ol sen advi se

Pi erce not t o campai gn f or Wool whi l e on dut y or t o use Depar t ment

r esour ces i n hi s campai gni ng. Pi er ce compl i ed wi t h bot h r equest s.

Throughout t he month of May, Pi er ce campai gned f or Wool

by handi ng out f l yer s, t al ki ng t o acquai nt ances about t he el ect i on,

and di spl ayi ng a campai gn si gn f or Wool on el ect i on day. On one

occasi on, Pi er ce was of f - dut y and campai gni ng f or Wool out si de t he

t own Post Of f i ce when Ol sen drove by and i ndi cat ed t hat he want ed

Pi er ce' s assi st ance at an emergency cal l . Repor t i ng t o emer gency

cal l s i s vol unt ar y f or of f - dut y f i r ef i ght er s, and Pi er ce decl i ned

Ol sen' s request . The next day, Ol sen t ol d Pi er ce t hat he wi shed

t hat Pi er ce had r esponded t o t he cal l . Ol sen al so ment i oned t hat

he was "concer ned" about " l osi ng Campbel l " as a Commi ss i oner dur i ng

t he upcomi ng el ect i on.

Campbel l ul t i mat el y won r eel ect i on. Fol l owi ng t he

el ect i on, accor di ng t o Pi er ce' s t est i mony, Ol sen t ol d Pi er ce t hat

he was "not happy" t hat Pi erce had campai gned f or Wool . Ol sen al so

opi ned t hat i t was " i nappr opr i at e" f or Pi er ce to have campai gned

-6-


7/21

out si de t he f i r e st at i on on a separ at e occasi on. Campbel l st opped

by Pi er ce' s of f i ce dur i ng t he same per i od, ost ensi bl y t o assur e

Pi er ce t hat he had no har d f eel i ngs, but he ul t i mat el y expr essed

di sappoi nt ment and f r ust r at i on wi t h Pi er ce over hi s suppor t f or

Wool .

C. Ret al i at i on and Et hi cs Compl ai nt s

On Oct ober 2, 2009, f our mont hs f ol l owi ng hi s campai gni ng

act i vi t y, Pi er ce sent a l et t er t o t he Boar d cl ai mi ng t hat Ol sen had

been r et al i at i ng agai nst hi m ever si nce t he el ect i on due t o hi s

suppor t of Wool . Pi er ce ci t ed a var i et y of f or ms of har assment

st ar t i ng i n t he weeks f ol l owi ng t he el ect i on. He r epor t ed t hat

Ol sen had r eneged on hi s promi se t o make Pi erce "Deput y Chi ef , "

t aken away Pi er ce' s of f i ce and made hi m r et ur n hi s

Depar t ment - i ssued cel l phone, cal l ed Pi er ce and hi s wi f e "gr eedy"

f or vol unt eer i ng f or over t i me, and publ i cl y l ashed out at Pi er ce

and t wo ot her f i r ef i ght er s f or f ai l i ng t o pr epar e f or a memor i al

cer emony. Whi l e Ol sen di d not r espond t o Pi er ce' s char ges at t he

t i me, he l at er cont ended t hat he needed t o r e- pur pose Pi er ce' s

of f i ce i nt o new sl eepi ng quar t er s due t o space const r ai nt s and t hat

i t woul d be mor e ef f i ci ent t o t ur n Pi er ce' s wor k cel l phone i nt o a

depar t ment - wi de phone f or on- dut y of f i cer s.

The Board r epl i ed t o Pi er ce wi t h a l et t er i ndi cat i ng t hat

hi s compl ai nt di d not conf or m t o t he gr i evance pr ocess pr escr i bed

by t he Depart ment ' s col l ect i ve bargai ni ng agr eement and t ook no

-7-


8/21

f ur t her act i ons on hi s char ges. Because Pi er ce' s l et t er cr i t i ci zed

Ol sen' s t r eat ment of bot h Pi er ce and hi s wi f e, however , t he Boar d

di d t ake t he occasi on t o r emi nd Pi er ce of hi s obl i gat i ons under t he

Massachuset t s et hi cs l aws and t o suggest t hat Pi er ce cont act t he

Et hi cs Commi ssi on f or an advi sory opi ni on regar di ng hi s

pr of essi onal r el at i onshi p wi t h J ayne.

On November 20, 2009, t he Boar d sent i t s own l et t er t o

t he Ethi cs Commi ss i on t o r equest t hat t he Commi ss i on conduct an

eval uat i on of Pi er ce' s pot ent i al conf l i ct of i nt er est , copyi ng

Pi er ce on t he communi cat i on. Among ot her t hi ngs, t he l et t er

i nf or med t he Commi ssi on t hat Pi erce had " r egul ar super vi sory

aut hor i t y over and day to day super vi si on of hi s wi f e, " and t hat

Pi er ce had par t i ci pat ed i n a di sci pl i nar y mat t er i nvol vi ng J ayne i n

Apr i l . The l et t er was si gned by Mycock and Fi el d, but not by

Campbel l , who had r esi gned t he pr evi ous day. Whi l e t he Et hi cs

Commi ssi on consi der ed t he Boar d' s l et t er , Pi er ce wr ot e t he Boar d t o

r equest a f ormal exempt i on under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, 19 f or

hi s and J ayne' s j oi nt empl oyment i n t he Depar t ment . The l et t er

est i mat ed t hat Pi er ce super vi sed hi s wi f e on t en t o t wel ve

occasi ons per year . The Boar d decl i ned t o t ake up Pi er ce' s request

whi l e i t awai t ed a response f r om t he Et hi cs Commi ssi on.

On J une 17, 2010, t he Et hi cs Commi ss i on sent Pi erce a

conf i dent i al l et t er i nf or mi ng hi m t hat he appear ed t o be i n

vi ol at i on of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, 19. To r emedy t he

-8-


9/21

si t uat i on, t he Commi ssi on suggest ed t hat Pi er ce shoul d obt ai n an

exempt i on, r est r uct ur e hi s posi t i on so as t o have no day- t o- day

super vi si on of J ayne, or ei t her he or J ayne coul d r esi gn. On J une

24, 2010, Pi er ce r epl i ed t o t he Et hi cs Commi ssi on t o cl ar i f y that

he di d not have "day- t o- day act i ve super vi si on" of hi s wi f e. I n

t he same l et t er , on whi ch Ol sen was copi ed, Pi er ce suggest ed that

t he Boar d had r ef used t o gr ant hi man exempt i on i n r et al i at i on f or

cer t ai n unr el at ed cl ai ms t hat he and J ayne wer e pur sui ng agai nst

t he Town of Cot ui t . The Boar d r esponded di r ect l y t o t he Et hi cs

Commi ssi on, agai n r ai si ng t he i ssue of Pi er ce' s super vi si on of

J ayne and hi s i nvol vement i n her di sci pl i ne and promot i on.

On J une 18, 2010, pr esumabl y wi t hout knowl edge of t he

l et t er Pi er ce had r ecei ved f r omt he Et hi cs Commi ssi on t he pr evi ous

day, Ol sen not i f i ed Pi er ce of hi s i nt ent t o suspend hi m wi t h pay.

Ol sen at t r i but ed hi s deci si on t o an i ndependent concl usi on r eached

by the Boar d' s counsel t hat Pi er ce was vi ol at i ng t he st at e et hi cs

l aw. He i nst i t ut ed t he suspensi on f ol l owi ng a hear i ng l at er t hat

mont h. Subsequent l y, Ol sen and t he Boar d became awar e of t he

Commi ss i on' s J une 17, 2010 l et t er . On November 29, 2010, af t er a

hear i ng at whi ch t he l et t er was di scussed, Ol sen suspended Pi er ce

wi t hout pay. Ol sen agai n expl ai ned t hat hi s di sci pl i nar y act i on

r esponded t o Pi er ce' s vi ol at i ons of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A.

On J anuary 11, 2011, t he Commi ss i on sent Pi erce a f i nal

conf i dent i al l et t er , i nf or mi ng hi m t hat t he Commi ssi on had f ound

-9-


10/21

"f act s suf f i ci ent t o f i nd r easonabl e cause t o bel i eve" t hat Pi er ce

was vi ol at i ng t he et hi cs l aw. Two weeks l at er , t he Commi ssi on

r esponded di r ect l y t o t he Boar d r egardi ng i t s November 20, 2009

compl ai nt agai nst Pi er ce. Whi l e not i ng t hat i t s "deci si on does not

necessar i l y mean t hat your compl ai nt was wi t hout mer i t , " t he

Commi ss i on determi ned t hat t he mat t er "does not warr ant f ur t her

i nvest i gat i on or t he i mposi t i on of f or mal sanct i ons at t hi s t i me. "

On Apr i l 20, 2011, despi t e t he Commi ssi on' s f ai l ur e t o

i mpose sanct i ons, t he Boar d chose t o t ermi nate Pi erce' s empl oyment .

D. Admi ni st r at i ve and Legal Act i ons

On December 3, 2010, Pi er ce i ni t i at ed t hi s act i on agai nst

t he Cot ui t Fi r e Depar t ment , t he Boar d, and Chi ef Ol sen and

Commi ss i oner s Campbel l , Mycock, and Fi el d i n t hei r i ndi vi dual

capaci t i es. Pi er ce sued t he Depar t ment and t he Boar d f or pol i t i cal

di scr i mi nat i on i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st Amendment and f or

r et al i at i on i n vi ol at i on of t he Massachuset t s Whi st l ebl ower Act .

He sued Ol sen, Campbel l , Mycock, and Fi el d f or pol i t i cal

di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on i n vi ol at i on of 42 U. S. C. 1983 and

f or t or t i ous i nt er f er ence wi t h cont r actual r el at i ons i n vi ol at i on

of t he common l aw.

That same day, Pi er ce al so i ni t i at ed a "st ep one"

gr i evance agai nst Ol sen r egar di ng hi s suspensi on wi t hout pay under

t he Cot ui t Fi r e Depar t ment ' s Col l ect i ve Bar gai ni ng Agr eement . On

-10-


11/21

December 19, 2010, Pi erce submi t t ed a "st ep t wo" gr i evance

r egardi ng t he same mat t er .

On May 8, 2011, l ess t han a mont h af t er Pi erce' s

t er mi nat i on, t he Board ent er ed i nt o a set t l ement agr eement wi t h t he

f i r ef i ght er ' s uni on t hat per mi t t ed Pi er ce t o r et ur n t o wor k as a

f ul l - t i me f i ref i ght er , whi l e restr i ct i ng Pi erce' s abi l i t y t o work

on any shi f t wi t h hi s wi f e. The uni on consequent l y wi t hdr ew a

schedul ed ar bi t r at i on r egar di ng Pi er ce' s gr i evances. Pi er ce

obj ect ed t o t he set t l ement , but event ual l y ret ur ned t o wor k as a

f i ref i ght er .

Af t er t he def endants moved f or summary j udgment , t he

di st r i ct cour t ent er ed j udgment i n t hei r f avor on al l cl ai ms.

Pi erce now appeal s.

II. Discussion

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summary j udgment de

novo, const r ui ng t he r ecor d i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he non-

movi ng par t y and r esol vi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n t hat

par t y' s f avor . Pr escot t v. Hi ggi ns, 538 F. 3d 32, 39 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) . We cannot af f i r m i f t he r ecor d i s suf f i ci ent l y open- ended

t o per mi t a r at i onal f act f i nder t o r esol ve a mat er i al f act ual

di sput e i n f avor of ei t her si de. I d. at 40; Maym v. P. R. Por t s

Aut h. , 515 F. 3d 20, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . I nver sel y, we must af f i r m

i f t he r ecor d r eveal s no genui ne i ssue as t o any mat er i al f act and

t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. Vi neber g v.

-11-


12/21

Bi ssonnet t e, 548 F. 3d 50, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ; Fed. R. Ci v. P.

56( c) . We ar e not l i mi t ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s rat i onal e, but

may af f i r m on any gr ounds made mani f est by t he r ecor d. J ones v.

Secor d, 684 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

A. Fi r st Amendment Ret al i at i on

Pi er ce cl ai ms t hat Ol sen and t he Boar d' s deci si ons t o

suspend and ul t i mat el y t er mi nat e hi mas Capt ai n, as wel l as Ol sen' s

pat t er n of host i l e conduct i n t he summer of 2009, const i t ut e

r et al i at i on f or hi s pol i t i cal suppor t f or Wool as Fi r e

Commi ssi oner .

I t i s wel l est abl i shed t hat pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on by

a st at e empl oyer , i ncl udi ng r et al i at i on f or a cont r ar y pol i t i cal

opi ni on, vi ol at es t he f r eedom of bel i ef and associ at i on pr ot ect ed

by t he Fi r st Amendment . See Padi l l a- Gar ci a v. Gui l l er mo Rodr i guez,

212 F. 3d 69, 74 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . As a cor e const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i on, empl oyment r et al i at i on f or pr ot ected pol i t i cal and

expr essi ve acti vi t y al so creat es i ndi vi dual l i abi l i t y under 42

U. S. C. 1983, subj ect t o t he r ul es of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. Powel l

v. Al exander , 391 F. 3d 1, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . To qual i f y f or

r el i ef under t he Fi r st Amendment or under 1983, an empl oyee' s

cl ai m must sur vi ve t he bur den- shi f t i ng anal ysi s enunci at ed i n Mt .

Heal t hy Ci t y School Di st r i ct Boar d of Educat i on v. Doyl e, 429 U. S.

274 ( 1977) . See Powel l , 391 F. 3d at 17. Fi r st , t he empl oyee must

demonst r at e that he engaged i n prot ect ed Fi r st Amendment conduct

-12-


13/21

and t hat t hi s conduct "was a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or " i n

hi s empl oyer ' s adver se empl oyment act i on. Wel ch v. Ci ampa, 542

F. 3d 927, 936 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ; see al so Mt . Heal t hy, 429 U. S. at

287. An empl oyer may subsequent l y avoi d l i abi l i t y by est abl i shi ng

t hat i t "woul d have t aken t he same act i on r egar dl ess of t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s pol i t i cal bel i ef s or pr ot ected conduct. " Wel ch, 542

F. 3d at 936; Padi l l a- Gar ci a, 212 F. 3d at 74; see al so Mt . Heal t hy,

429 U. S. at 287. Fi nal l y, t he bur den shi f t s back t o t he pl ai nt i f f

t o "di scredi t t he . . . nondi scri mi nat or y r eason, ei t her

ci r cumst ant i al l y or di r ect l y, by adduci ng evi dence t hat

di scr i mi nat i on was mor e l i kel y t han not a mot i vat i ng f act or . "

Padi l l a- Gar ci a, 212 F. 3d at 77.

Based on t he r ecor d, Pi er ce' s cl ai m agai nst nei t her t he

Boar d nor Ol sen survi ves t he Mt . Heal t hy f r amewor k. Wi t h r egar d t o

t he Boar d, Pi erce has of f ered no evi dence t hat t he Commi ss i oners

had any pol i t i cal mot i vat i ons i n t hei r t r eat ment of hi m. Pi er ce

has not suggest ed t hat ei t her Mycock or Fi el d opposed Wool f or

Commi ss i oner , and i ndeed t he r ecor d reveal s t hat both Commi ss i oners

shar ed Pi er ce' s concer n t hat Campbel l had an undesi r abl e conf l i ct

of i nt er est . Whi l e a j ur y mi ght be abl e t o i nf er t hat Campbel l

t ook i ssue wi t h Pi er ce' s opposi t i on t o hi s candi dacy, Campbel l

r esi gned f r om t he Boar d bef or e ei t her Pi er ce' s suspensi on or

t er mi nat i on t ook pl ace. Even gr ant i ng Pi er ce t he i nf er ence t hat

Campbel l may have been i nvol ved wi t h draf t i ng t he Boar d' s November

-13-


14/21

10, 2009 l et t er t o t he Et hi cs Commi ssi on, t hat l et t er sought onl y

t he Commi ssi on' s opi ni on on Pi er ce' s pot ent i al conf l i ct of

i nt er est . Pi er ce does not cont end t hat Campbel l i nf l uenced t he

Boar d' s deci si on t o t er mi nat e Pi er ce over a year l at er . He

consequent l y f ai l s t o make even a pr i ma f aci e showi ng of pol i t i cal

di scr i mi nat i on agai nst t he Boar d.

Pi er ce has adduced f ar mor e subst ant i al evi dence t hat

Ol sen obj ect ed t o Pi er ce' s pol i t i cal suppor t of Wool . Assumi ng

t hat Pi er ce has st at ed a pr i ma f aci e case of pol i t i cal r et al i at i on

agai nst Ol sen, however , Pi er ce' s cl ai m f ai l s at t he second Mt .

Heal t hy st ep. The r ecor d i dent i f i es a l egi t i mat e and non-

di scri mi nat or y j ust i f i cat i on f or each i nst ance of Ol sen' s

"har assment " of Pi er ce f ol l owi ng t he el ect i on. Ol sen r e- pur posed

Pi er ce' s of f i ce because t he Depar t ment was t i ght on space. He t ook

back Pi er ce' s cel l phone because i t was mor e ef f i ci ent t o make t he

phone avai l abl e t o al l on- dut y of f i cer s. He f ai l ed t o make Pi er ce

"Deput y Chi ef " because no such posi t i on had ever exi st ed nor exi st s

now i n t he Depart ment . He upbr ai ded Pi erce i n connect i on wi t h t he

memor i al ceremony because Pi erce was unpr epared f or an of f i ci al

dut y, and i ncl uded sever al ot her of f endi ng f i r ef i ght er s i n hi s

r epr oach.

Pi er ce l eans heavi l y on Ol sen' s deci si on t o suspend hi m

wi t hout pay i n the summer of 2010 even t hough l ess drast i c opt i ons,

such as an i mmedi ate demot i on, were avai l abl e. Yet Ol sen' s

-14-


15/21

deci si on i s di r ect l y expl ai ned by hi s obj ect i ons t o Pi er ce' s

ongoi ng et hi cs vi ol at i on as Capt ai n of t he Depar t ment , and Pi er ce' s

cl ai ms t hat t hi s expl anat i on i s pr et ext ual ar e pur el y specul at i ve.

Whi l e Pi erce repeat edl y not es t hat Ol sen coul d have chosen a l ess

ext r eme remedy, he does not deny t hat Ol sen' s act i ons were wi t hi n

t he r easonabl e r ange of r esponses t o Ol sen' s concerns about

Pi er ce' s pr of essi onal r el at i onshi p wi t h hi s wi f e. Nor does Pi er ce

of f er any evi dence t hat such concer ns woul d not have j ust i f i ed

Ol sen' s act i ons i n t he regul ar cour se of conduct - - f or exampl e,

evi dence t hat ot her Fi r e Chi ef s t r eat ed si mi l ar l y- si t uat ed of f i cer s

mor e l eni ent l y.

The di st r i ct cour t proper l y ent er ed summar y j udgment i n

f avor of t he def endant s on Pi er ce' s Fi r st Amendment cl ai m.

B. Whi st l ebl ower Ret al i at i on

Pi er ce f ur t her cont ends t hat t he Boar d' s i nst i gat i on of

an et hi cs i nvest i gat i on agai nst hi mand i t s ul t i mat e t er mi nat i on of

hi s empl oyment vi ol ated t he Massachuset t s Whi st l ebl ower Act

( "MWA") , Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 185 et seq. Pi erce suggest s

t hat t he Boar d r et al i at ed agai nst hi m f or hi s Oct ober 2, 2009

l et t er obj ect i ng t o Ol sen' s har assment or f or hi s J une 24, 2010

l et t er t o t he Et hi cs Commi ssi on obj ect i ng t o t he Boar d' s r ef usal t o

gr ant hi m an exempt i on.

-15-


16/21

Pi er ce' s chal l enge may sound under ei t her sect i on

185( b) ( 1) or sect i on 185( b) ( 3) of t he MWA. 1 Sect i on 185( b) ( 1)

pr ohi bi t s a st at e empl oyer f r omr et al i at i ng agai nst an empl oyee who

"[ d] i scl oses, or t hr eat ens t o di scl ose t o a super vi sor or t o a

publ i c body an act i vi t y, pol i cy or pr act i ce of t he empl oyer . . .

t hat t he empl oyee r easonabl y bel i eves i s i n vi ol at i on of a l aw. "

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 185( b) ( 1) . Sect i on 185( b) ( 3) of t he

st at ut e pr ohi bi t s an empl oyer f r omr et al i at i ng agai nst an empl oyee

who "[ o] bj ect s t o, or r ef uses t o par t i ci pat e i n any act i vi t y,

pol i cy or pr act i ce whi ch t he empl oyee r easonabl y bel i eves i s i n

vi ol at i on of a l aw. " I d. 185( b) ( 3) . To qual i f y f or pr ot ecti on

under sect i on 185( b) ( 1) , but not under sect i on 185( b) ( 3) , an

empl oyee must f i r st "br [ i ng] t he act i vi t y, pol i cy or pr act i ce . .

. t o the at t ent i on of a super vi sor of t he empl oyee by wr i t t en

not i ce and . . . af f or d[ ] t he empl oyer a r easonabl e oppor t uni t y to

cor r ect t he act i vi t y, pol i cy or pr act i ce. " I d. 185( c) ( 1) .

Whi l e t he t wo causes of act i on ar e qui t e di st i nct , a

pl ai nt i f f ' s bur den of pr oof under t he MWA cl osel y par al l el s hi s

bur den f or Fi r st Amendment di scr i mi nat i on under Mt . Heal t hy. To

prevai l on an MWA cl ai m, an empl oyee must show " t hat he engaged i n

pr ot ected acti vi t y and t hat hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t hat acti vi t y

pl ayed a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng par t i n t he r et al i at or y act i on. "

1 Because Pi er ce di d not i dent i f y whi ch pr ovi si on of t he MWAunder wr i t es hi s cl ai m, we f ol l ow t he di st r i ct cour t i n anal yzi ngbot h sect i ons as t he most pl ausi bl e opt i ons.

-16-


17/21

Wel ch, 542 F. 3d at 943; see al so Lar ch v. Mansf i el d Mun. El ec.

Dep' t , 272 F. 3d 63, 67 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . The empl oyer may

subsequent l y avoi d l i abi l i t y "by pr of f er i ng a l egi t i mat e,

nonr et al i at or y r eason f or t he [ adver se act i on] . " Hi ggi ns v. New

Bal ance At hl et i c Shoe, I nc. , 194 F. 3d 252, 262 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

The bur den t hen shi f t s back t o t he empl oyee t o "adduce some

si gni f i cant l y pr obat i ve evi dence showi ng bot h t hat t he pr of f er ed

r eason i s pr et extual and t hat a r et al i at or y ani mus spar ked hi s

di smi ssal . " I d.

The par t i es spend some t i me debat i ng whet her Chi ef Ol sen

qual i f i es as an "empl oyer" or merel y a "supervi sor " under t he MWA,

and subsequent l y whet her Pi er ce' s Oct ober 2, 2009 l et t er t o t he

Boar d di scl osed an unl awf ul "pr act i ce of t he empl oyer " under

sect i on 185( b) ( 1) . 2 The par t i es al so debat e whet her Pi er ce' s J une

24, 2010 l et t er t o the Et hi cs Commi ssi on, di r ect l y accusi ng t he

Boar d of r et al i at i on f or an unr el at ed l egal di sput e, sat i sf i ed

sect i on 185( c) ( 1) ' s not i f i cat i on r equi r ement .

2 The Massachuset t s st at ut e def i nes t he "Empl oyer " subj ect t oi t s pr ovi si ons as " t he commonweal t h, and i t s agenci es or pol i t i calsubdi vi si ons, i ncl udi ng, but not l i mi t ed t o, ci t i es, t owns,count i es and r egi onal school di st r i ct s, or any aut hor i t y,

commi ssi on, boar d or i nst r ument al i t y t her eof . " Mass. Gen. Laws ch.149, 185( a) ( 2) . The st at ut e def i nes a "Super vi sor " separ at el y,as "any i ndi vi dual t o whom an empl oyer has gi ven t he aut hor i t y todi r ect and cont r ol t he wor k per f or mance of t he af f ect ed empl oyee,[ or ] who has aut hor i t y t o t ake cor r ect i ve act i on r egar di ng t hevi ol at i on of t he l aw, r ul e or r egul at i on of whi ch t he empl oyeecompl ai ns. " I d. 185( a) ( 4) .

-17-


18/21

We do not r each t hese i ssues, because, as wi t h hi s Fi r st

Amendment chal l enge, Pi er ce' s cl ai m under t he MWA f ai l s at t he

second st ep of t he bur den- shi f t i ng f r amewor k. Even assumi ng t hat

Pi er ce coul d est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of r et al i at i on by the

Boar d based on ei t her hi s Oct ober 2, 2009 or hi s J une 24, 2010

l et t er , t he Boar d has of f er ed an i ndependent and l egi t i mat e mot i ve

f or i t s adver se empl oyment act i ons: i t s obj ect i ons t o Pi er ce' s

pot ent i al vi ol at i ons of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, 19. Pi er ce

emphasi zes t he suspi ci ous proxi mi t y between hi s Oct ober 2, 2009

compl ai nt t o t he Boar d agai nst Ol sen and t he Boar d' s pr ompt

i nst i gat i on of an et hi cs i nvest i gat i on agai nst hi m. Yet t he Boar d

does not suggest t he t i mi ng was pur el y coi nci dent al : by

si mul t aneousl y pr ot est i ng bot h hi s and J ayne' s t r eat ment i n t he

same pr of essi onal communi cat i on, Pi er ce' s l et t er br ought hi s

pot ent i al et hi cs vi ol at i on back t o t he Boar d' s at t ent i on. The

r ecor d cor r obor at es t hat t he mont hs bef or e Pi er ce' s l et t er had

wi t nessed r evi t al i zed ef f or t s t o combat i nt r a- depar t ment al nepot i sm

at t he Cot ui t Fi r e Depar t ment , not l east t hr ough Ol sen' s r el ease of

an updat ed Fami l i al Rel at i ons Pol i cy t hat Mar ch- - wel l bef or e

Pi er ce' s suppor t of Wool dur i ng t he spr i ng el ect i on. Pi er ce' s

l et t er al so f ol l owed soon on t he heel s of Ol sen' s August 2009

i nvest i gat i on of a "host i l e envi r onment " at t he Depar t ment , whi ch

yi el ded compl ai nt s agai nst t he Pi er ces by near l y hal f of t he

Depar t ment ' s empl oyees. The r ecor d f ul l y suppor t s t he Boar d' s

-18-


19/21

cl ai mt hat i t s et hi cs i nvest i gat i on, and i t s subsequent t er mi nat i on

of Pi er ce, r esponded t o genui ne and t i mel y concer ns about Pi er ce' s

pr of essi onal conduct as Capt ai n.

The di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y ent er ed summar y j udgment i n

f avor of t he def endant s on Pi erce' s MWA chal l enge.

C. Tor t i ous I nt er f er ence wi t h Cont r act ual Rel at i ons

Fi nal l y, i n a pendent st at e cl ai m, Pi er ce cl ai ms t hat

Chi ef Ol sen and Commi ss i oners Campbel l , Mycock, and Fi el d

t or t i ousl y i nt er f er ed wi t h hi s empl oyment cont r act wi t h t he Cot ui t

Fi r e Depar t ment .

To suppor t a cl ai m of t or t i ous i nter f er ence wi t h

cont r act ual r el at i ons, a pl ai nt i f f must pr ove t hat : "( 1) he had a

cont r act wi t h a t hi r d par t y; ( 2) t he def endant knowi ngl y i nt er f er ed

wi t h t hat cont r act . . . ; ( 3) t he def endant ' s i nt er f er ence, i n

addi t i on t o bei ng i nt ent i onal , was i mpr oper i n mot i ve or means; and

( 4) t he pl ai nt i f f was har med by the def endant ' s act i ons. "

O' Donnel l v. Boggs, 611 F. 3d 50, 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng

Har r i son v. Net Cent r i c Cor p. , 744 N. E. 2d 622, 632 ( Mass. 2001) ) .

Because a def endant may t or t i ousl y i nt er f er e onl y wi t h a

pl ai nt i f f ' s cont r act wi t h a t hi r d par t y, an empl oyee cannot br i ng

a cl ai m of t or t i ous i nt er f er ence wi t h an empl oyment cont r act

agai nst hi s own empl oyer . Har r i son, 744 N. E. 2d at 632. However ,

an empl oyee may br i ng a cl ai m agai nst a super vi sor i f he

demonst r ates t hat t he super vi sor act ed "out of mal evol ence, t hat

-19-


20/21

i s, wi t h act ual mal i ce. " Bl ackst one v. Cashman, 860 N. E. 2d 7, 13

( Mass. 2007) ( quot i ng Gr amv. Li ber t y Mut . I ns. Co. , 429 N. E. 2d 21,

24 ( Mass. 1981) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ;

see al so O' Donnel l , 611 F. 3d at 54 n. 3. A showi ng of act ual mal i ce

r equi r es "more t han a showi ng of mere host i l i t y. " Zi mmerman v.

Di r ect Fed. Cr edi t Uni on, 262 F. 3d 70, 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . A

pl ai nt i f f must show t hat mal i ce "was t he cont r ol l i ng f act or i n t he

super vi sor ' s i nt er f er ence"; t hat t he i nf er ence of mal i ce i s

"pr obab[ l e] r at her t han possi b[ l e] " ; and t hat t he evi dence

af f i r mat i vel y suggest s t he super vi sor ' s act i ons "wer e not der i ved

f r om a desi r e t o advance t he empl oyer ' s l egi t i mat e busi ness

i nt er est s. " I d. at 76- 77.

I n t hi s case, Commi ssi oner s Campbel l , Mycock, and Fi el d

wer e al l si gnat or i es t o Pi er ce' s empl oyment cont r act wi t h t he

Cot ui t Fi r e Depar t ment . I t i s t hus quest i onabl e whet her t hey can

be vi ewed as " super vi sor s" so as t o cr eat e l i abi l i t y under t he

common l aw. Even assumi ng t hat al l f our def endant s are

"super vi sor s" l i abl e f or t or t i ous i nt er f er ence, however , Pi er ce has

f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat any of t hem act ed wi t h "act ual mal i ce. "

As di scussed above, al l of t he named def endant s had l egi t i mat e

busi ness r easons f or t hei r adver se act i ons agai nst Pi er ce- - most

not abl y, t hei r genui ne concer ns about t he Depar t ment ' s vi ol at i on of

t he Massachuset t s et hi cs l aws. Pi er ce has not demonst r at ed t hat

-20-


21/21

pr obabl e mal i ce was t he cont r ol l i ng f act or behi nd t he

Commi ss i oners' or Ol sen' s empl oyment deci si ons.

The di st r i ct cour t proper l y ent er ed summar y j udgment s i n

f avor of t he def endant s on Pi er ce' s t or t i ous i nt er f er ence cl ai m.

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of

summary j udgment i s af f i r med as t o al l cl ai ms.

-21-

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents