View
216
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
7/26/2019 Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
Recommended