Wagner v. Devine, 96-2315
| Decision Date | 05 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-2315,96-2315 |
| Citation | 122 F.3d 53 |
| Parties | Robert WAGNER and Margaret Wagner, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Patricia DEVINE, Kevin A. Jourdain, Charles E. Moran, III, Arthur Therrien, John E. Whelihan, The City of Holyoke, Massachusetts, The International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 388, and The International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Defendants, Appellees. . Heard |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Stewart T. Graham, Jr., Hampden, MA, for appellants.
John H. Fitz-Gibbon with whom Harry L. Miles, Northampton, MA, was on brief for appellees Devine, Jourdain, Moran, Whelihan and the City of Holyoke, Massachusetts.
Lawrence D. Humphrey, Quincy, MA, for appellees Therrien, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 388, and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers.
Before SELYA, Circuit Judge, COFFIN and CYR, Senior Circuit Judges.
Appellant Robert Wagner, former chief of police in Holyoke, Massachusetts, claims that his First Amendment freedom of political association was violated when members of the city council and others subjected him to severe harassment, ultimately forcing him to resign, because of his political support for the city's mayor. He filed this lawsuit alleging federal constitutional and state law claims. 1 The district court dismissed the First Amendment counts for failure to state a claim, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law counts. Because the First Amendment does not protect a policymaking official such as appellant from criticism and harassment, we affirm.
Appellant Wagner was appointed Holyoke's chief of police in July 1991 by then newly elected Mayor Hamilton. Wagner asserts that four members of the City Council who were Hamilton's political opponents engaged in a campaign of harassment against him for the purpose of embarrassing the mayor and forcing appellant to resign. He contends that their criticisms of his job performance were unfair and inaccurate, and that their actions were motivated solely by their opposition to his political beliefs and his political support of the mayor. 3 He further asserts that the president of the police union, and through him the local and international unions, conspired with the council members to effectuate the plan to oust him.
The complaint accuses the council members of harassing him by means of unspecified "actions," and numerous false and defamatory statements. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, appellant's counsel identified the challenged actions as follows:
They were constantly criticizing him. They had subcommittees that they were chairing and they had him up to see the council constantly, criticizing him in everything he did.... They tried to eliminate his salary. They reduced his salary.
They reduced his benefits. They refused to fund programs that he was pushing.
Although the mayor has sole authority under the city charter to hire or fire the police chief, the council has power to set the salary and benefits for the position. According to Wagner, the four defendant council members, a minority of the governing body, "led the charge" against him and secured the complicity of enough other councilors to accomplish their unlawful objectives.
Wagner resigned in September 1994. He asserts that he was forced to do so because the defendants' actions and statements hindered, undermined, and interfered with the performance of his duties, and thus constituted a constructive discharge. 4
This lawsuit followed. In addition to federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which assert violation of his First Amendment right to political association, Wagner alleged a state civil rights violation, and state law claims of defamation, tortious interference with contractual relations, and, in his wife's name, loss of consortium. In response to the defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the district court substantively addressed only the section 1983 count. It ruled that "the alleged harassment which Wagner sustained at the hands of a minority of the city councilors and a subordinate police officer was not of sufficient degree to constitute 'a constitutionally significant burden on [Wagner's] political association right.' " Memorandum and Order at 5 (quoting Agosto-de-Feliciano v. Aponte-Roque, 889 F.2d 1209, 1216 (1st Cir.1989) (en banc )).
The court also concluded that, even if the harassment had been sufficiently severe to implicate constitutional concerns, Wagner's First Amendment claim still would fail because the police chief's position was one for which political affiliation is an appropriate requirement. Public employees who hold such positions, the court ruled, are not protected by the First Amendment from partisan attacks on their job performance. Having dismissed the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action and dismissed them as well.
The Wagners then filed this appeal. Our review of the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is de novo. Romero-Barcelo v. Hernandez-Agosto, 75 F.3d 23, 28 n. 2 (1st Cir.1996). We may affirm a dismissal for failure to state a claim only if it clearly appears that, on the facts alleged, the plaintiff cannot recover on any viable theory. Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d 49, 52 (1st Cir.1990). Because the district court's ruling that the First Amendment does not protect Wagner from politically motivated discrimination is both correct and dispositive, we turn to that issue first. 5
The Supreme Court more than twenty years ago established that the First Amendment provides protection for public employees from adverse job action based solely on partisan political affiliation. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion); Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980); Rutan v. Republican Party, 497 U.S. 62, 110 S.Ct. 2729, 111 L.Ed.2d 52 (1990). 6 The protection is not universal, however. In its precedent-setting case examining the constitutionality of the patronage system, the Court recognized the competing First Amendment interest of the in-power political party "to insure that policies which the electorate has sanctioned are effectively implemented," Elrod, 427 U.S. at 372, 96 S.Ct. at 2689. The Court therefore allowed patronage practices to continue for those employees who, inter alia, make policy or occupy positions of confidence. Id.; Branti, 445 U.S. at 517-18, 100 S.Ct. at 1294-95. 7
Our circuit has since faced a long line of cases raising the issue of political discrimination in employment, most of which have focused on whether the particular position held by the plaintiff employee fell inside or outside the First Amendment-protected sphere. See, e.g., Agosto-de-Feliciano, 889 F.2d at 1212 & n. 1, 1218 (). This case presents an interesting departure from the norm. Both parties accept that Wagner's job as police chief sufficiently elevated him in the Holyoke hierarchy that, under the principles we have just outlined, he could be fired based on political affiliation.
Wagner, however, contends that he was subjected to an impermissible constructive discharge because only the mayor--the official who hired him and for whom he served as a policymaker--may fire him based on political affiliation without violating the First Amendment. This is so, he maintains, because the Elrod-Branti exception was designed to ensure that the policies of a new administration--"policies presumably sanctioned by the electorate," Elrod, 427 U.S. at 367, 96 S.Ct. at 2686--would not be undercut by the obstructive tactics of opposition incumbents. This rationale provides no justification for opponents of a new administration--such as the defendants here--to harass the administration's supporters. Their conduct, Wagner argues, is therefore unconstitutional.
Wagner's analysis ignores the reality of precedent. Both Supreme Court and First Circuit caselaw have recognized the applicability of the Elrod- Branti dichotomy outside the context of a new administration's patronage practices. The conflict in Rutan, where the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment forbids government officials from basing less-than-discharge actions such as hiring, promotion, and transfer on political affiliation and support, did not arise amidst the seating of a new administration. At issue was the implementation of an executive order proclaiming a hiring freeze, with "exceptions" allegedly made based on political affiliation. In referring back to Elrod and Branti in the opinion's opening paragraph, the majority broadly described those cases as protecting public employees from discharge "solely for not being supporters of the political party in power, unless party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the position involved," 497 U.S. at 64, 110 S.Ct. at 2731. That decision indicates that the First Amendment protection against patronage practices, as well as the exceptions for certain categories of highly placed employees, apply whenever public employees are at odds politically with their superiors and thus subject to politically discriminatory behaviors.
Our decision in Romero-Barcelo, 75 F.3d at 33-34, brings us even closer to the present context. In rejecting a former Puerto Rico governor's allegations that he had suffered severe political discrimination during a murder investigation because of his association with the out-of-power New Progressive Party (NPP), we stated:
The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment "protects nonpolicymakers from being drummed out of public service on the basis of their political...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pandolfi De Rinaldis v. Llavona
...liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably admit of a claim...." Id.; see also Doyle, 103 F.3d at 190. Recently, in Wagner v. Devine, 122 F.3d 53 (1st Cir.1997) the First Circuit held that a Court must "affirm a dismissal for failure to state a claim only if it clearly appears that, ......
-
Siaca v. Autoridad De Acueductos Y Alcantarillados
...a liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably admit of a claim ...." Id. See also Doyle, 103 F.3d at 190. In Wagner v. Devine, 122 F.3d 53 (1st Cir.1997), the First Circuit held that a Court must "affirm a dismissal for failure to state a claim only if it clearly appears that, on the ......
-
Newell v. Runnels
...v. Best, Best & Krieger, 189, F.3d 989, 994 n. 4 (9th Cir.1999); McEvoy v. Spencer, 124 F.3d 92, 99 (2d Cir.1997); Wagner v. Devine, 122 F.3d 53, 56 n. 7 (1st Cir.1997). 21. The State Defendants note that victims have rights of which are to be notified and to attend court proceedings, to re......
-
Vizcarrondo v. Board of Trustees of Univ. Of P.R.
...a liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably admit of a claim ...." Id.; see also Doyle, 103 F.3d at 190. In Wagner v. Devine, 122 F.3d 53 (1st Cir.1997), the First Circuit held that a Court must "affirm a dismissal for failure to state a claim only if it clearly appears that, on the......
-
Constitutional violations (42 U.S.C. §1983)
...with policymaking function, or who occupy positions of unusually intimate affiliation with government leaders. Wagner v. Devine , 122 F.3d 53, 55 (1st Cir. 1997). Second: In determining whether plaintiff is entitled to First Amendment protection from politically motivated dismissal, factfin......
-
Deposing & examining the plaintiff
...courts have held that a police chief constitutes a policymaking position that is not protected by the First Amendment. Wagner v. Devine, 122 F.3d 53, 56-58 (1st Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1090 (1998); Spradlin v. City of Mantachie, 1995 WL 1945479, *4-5 (N.D. Miss. 1995); Rodez v. V......