Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I_4______,,____,4.,_,,_,_ _ .....4..... *._....—;. I······-··——* H · I
ae. ` `° _ Case 3:00-c O9-AWT Document 47 Filed O1/O5/2IOOI; JI.- I
I
• ¤—<-~¤—I ISSI I
‘ $\° ·-~I=S-~··>
1 __ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE LS IM y
S .*~i A FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT fg ISO I ‘
3 SUMMARY ORDER IIPSE 5 :_E I ` I I
4 THIS SUIVJMARY ORDER wT1.E nST BE PUBLISHED IN HEI, IE E IIZ I EIII¤ISE,..II;EE I
E AND my EST BE CITED AS EEESEEEETTAE AUTHORI E 'ZIII j‘III IEE _. ISS __ I I
I 6 A OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTEET Sn; E I I -SIQ_ E·I.·AnT
7 OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CA E, I n A ETP TEE
-3 I CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF SSEEATE L S OP EL OR RES
9 I JU1:>1cATA.
10 A
11 At a stated term of the United States C urtI o A pe ls for
12 the Second Circuit, held at the United State Th r oo M rshall ‘
13 ICou:r:thouse, at Foley Square, in the City of ew o k, on the _
14 day of , two thousand and t ree.
15 I
16 IPEEEENTI
17 gms G O RTOF I
18 I Hon. John M. Walker, Jr., FIL • 4¤°,%_
19 I Chief Judge, . f,
20 DEC 012003 ¤*= I
2], · . Hon. Guido Calabresi, I IMS I°0g3*' I
22 Hon. Chester J. Straub, Cd““'K°‘I‘“G0{<
23 Circuit Judges. ND CIR
24
25 I——““*-w----.-—__-l_I------_··-.'___-—____-.-.-`_-'____-K
26 I I
27 I I A I
28 IEEE S. SHERBACOW. I
29 I
30 I ]?1aintiff-Aggellant, I
Jl I I
32 V. I I I
33 ‘ I . I . No 03-7423
34 I·1·1aE0¤0EE E. ANSON and I . _ I
35 Iwn.:.TAM E. ANDREWS A
36
3 7 pefendantS -Appe11ees . ‘ -
38
39 I I
40 ___..... ..-,. ,... ;. .... .. ............ - .........-- I I
41 I A
42 IAPPEARING ESE AEEEEEAETSI ANDRE EI =· · ,
43 I Westp rt. T.
44 A I I
45 _ I I I
46 IAEEEAETNS FOR APPELLEE: STSv A. TI E II wET.;.EE I
I .
I I I
ISSUE II AS A DA E: \'2.I‘2,°II¤3
I

. ..... iii ni“.....n..i..——........Mi_........-.—--4-M44-—-p- ‘-
~ - ` ` , Case 3:00-cv-01109-AWT Document 47 Filed 01/05/ 00 ` Pa e20f3
I .
I y I
l I (Jam s N 'ob-rtxon, Jr.,
2 I on t s_b i=f)
3 - Carm dyQ» lor an·e
4 ’ were bun , c·1·
5 . ‘
7 I Appeal from the United States District our· ior th: I
8 IDistrict of Connecticut (Alvin W.-Thompson, Dist iat ludqe). ‘ ·
9 I I
10 I UPON DUE CONSIDERATION,_IT IS HEREBY ORQEREW, AD¤UDmED·AND · I
11 DECREED that the judgment of said district court b= a·d t hereby _
12 Iis AFFIRMED. I I
13 I _ .
14 I ‘ Plaintiff—appellant Ken S. Sherbacow appealu iro t·e March
15 I31, 2003 judgment of the district court grantgng d=fe§da=ts~ _
16 'appellees Theodore_R. Anson and William R. A rews's ot on for
17 summary judgment on appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983-c ai for
18 . termination of employment in violation of the Fi s A enement
19 Iright to free speech. The_district court determ n=d han Anson _
20 land Andrews had met their burden of setting fbrt% iac s =howing _
21 I Ithat Sherbacow’s speech was not a substantialIor m•ti at ng
22 factor in his discharge and that Sherbacow had nmt ra sed genuine _
23 .Iissues of material fact. It concluded that t&erw as no evidence .
24 to suggest that (1) Sherbacow's 1997 reassign enh o he leasing
25 unit was related to his speech instead of oth r, u re at:d I `
26 I factors; (2) when Sherbacow was advised that -is=p•si io· was_ -
27 |“at—risk” it was motivated by his speech and ot b‘dg ta·y
28 Icutbacks;(3) Anson and Andrews knew that Sher acww ha m-de . .
29 complaints to the State Property Review Board in 1999 o- (4) ‘
30 Anson and-Andrews knew that Sherbacow was the so-r•e lf 'ebruary
‘31 1997 formal complaints or leaks to the press. 'OE ·pp al,
32` Sherbacow argues that he has raised genuine i su‘s of mauerial · I
33 Ifact as to whether Anson and Andrews's conducF w_s a ub=tantial I
34 Imotivating factor in his discharge. ` - I
35. I I I y y
36- I We review the district court's grant of -um a udement dg
37 Inovo, construing the evidence in the light mo-t_Ia or bl: to the
38 `non—moving_party and drawing all reasonable i fehe ce i its _
39 Ifavor. See Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v Be_ire NY I c., 277
40 IF.3d 232, 236 (2d Cir. 2002).
I . ·
42 I We need not reach the issue of whether A so_ · d An•rews-
43 I ismissed Sherbacow because they suspected th t e a= t e -'I
44 I histle+blower. Anson and Andrews demonstrat d hat %he¤bacow’s _
45 I osition would have been eliminated absent hi s eech as a result ` I
46 I f downsizing and Sherbacow has shown no evid ncj tia· t e _ _ - I
‘47 I roffered reason for his dismissal was pretex uaI i· nat re. ` I
a I I
. _ I I . I

. O “ I — I I I I
` ` · Case 3:00-cv-01109-AWT Document`47 Filed O1/05/200 F#a e30f3 O _ I
ZL Haviiiq reviewed the record, we find no rro 'n " he actions I
2 · of the district court and affirm its judgmerig. ‘ E
3 I I I O I
4 I -
5 I I I
6 ‘ FOR THE COURT: I · ` I
_ _7 I Rosearm B. Macliechnie, · l rk ‘ -
8 I 2/ O
9 I ` I I
10 I I 5 · ’ ” · °
ll | - _ Lucille Carr, Deput Cl r _
12 _ 5 _
13 5 ·
14 I O - - ‘
15 I I I I
17 I I I I . I I I
18 I I I
20 O I
21 _ I l O I l O I
22 I I ` · O `
23 . l ‘ _
24 - _ I
25 I I I I
I O O I
II I
E ‘ ` i
5 I · I
· O " . -- . · Y I·
` ‘ _ _ in J5 ____ IO 55-I _, JO 5 - A ‘ O
-; iR¤S ~· ji Iban-.i
= · - ‘ T} O I
_ b . 55 Y ,_—;L5;3,x2.1< I
E O in `I