McCue v. Bradstreet, III, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 McCue v. Bradstreet, III, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/40

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1922

CARL D. McCUE,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

SETH BRADSTREET, I I I ,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. J on D. Levy, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Bar r on, Ci r cui t J udge,and Souter , * Associ at e J ust i ce. **

Davi d G. Webber t , wi t h whomMax R. Kat l er and J ohnson, Webber t& Young, LLP, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

J anet T. Mi l l s, At t or ney Gener al , wi t h whom Chr i st opher C.

* Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t heSupr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.

** J udge Li pez, one of t he t hr ee panel member s i ni t i al l yassi gned t o hear t hi s appeal , r ecused shor t l y bef or e or al ar gument .The r emai ni ng t wo panel members, J ust i ce Souter and J udge Bar r on,hear d argument s wi t hout a t hi r d member . We concl ude t hat , as aquor um of t he i ni t i al t hr ee- member panel , we ar e aut hor i zed t odeci de t hi s case under 28 U. S. C. 46( d) . See Wal - Mar t St or es,I nc. v. Vi sa U. S. A. , I nc. , 396 F. 3d 96, 100 n. * ( 2d Ci r . 2005) ;Mur r ay v. Nat ' l Br oad. Co. , 35 F. 3d 45, 46- 47 ( 2d Ci r . 1994) .


2/40

Taub and Susan P. Her man, Assi st ant At t or neys Gener al , wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

J ul y 16, 2015


3/40

- 3 -

BARRON, Circuit Judge. I n t hi s appeal , a Mai ne dai r y

f armer seeks t o reverse a summary j udgment r ul i ng t hat r ej ected

hi s Fi r st Amendment r et al i at i on cl ai m agai nst t he f or mer

Commi ssi oner of t he Mai ne Depar t ment of Agr i cul t ur e. The sui t

al l eges t hat , whi l e i n of f i ce, t he Commi ssi oner used t he st at e' s

r egul at or y appar at us t o r et al i at e f or t he Fi r st Amendment -

pr ot ect ed conduct t hat t he f ar mer engaged i n t o resol ve an ear l i er

busi ness di sput e between t he t wo men.

Compl i cat i ng t he dai r y f ar mer ' s cl ai m, t hough, ar e not

onl y l ongst andi ng concer ns t hat hi s f ar mhad f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h

st at e agr i cul t ur al and envi r onment al r egul at i ons, but al so t he

Commi ssi oner ' s deci si on soon af t er t aki ng of f i ce t o r ecuse hi msel f

f r om r egul at or y mat t er s i nvol vi ng t he f ar mer . The Di st r i ct Cour t

noted each of t hese aspect s of t he case i n awardi ng summary

j udgment agai nst t he f ar mer . And we agr ee wi t h t he Di st r i ct Cour t

t hat , i n consequence of t hose f eat ur es of t he case, t he f ar mer

f ai l ed t o make a suf f i ci ent showi ng t o survi ve summary j udgment

wi t h r espect t o t he thr ee adver se regul at or y act i ons t hat t he

Depart ment was al l eged t o have t aken af t er t he Commi ss i oner ' s

pur por t ed r ecusal .

Unl i ke t he Di st r i ct Cour t , however , we concl ude t hat

t her e i s a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act wi t h r espect t o whet her

t he Commi ssi oner ' s r et al i at or y i nt ent was a subst ant i al or

mot i vat i ng f act or i n t he one al l eged adver se act i on t hat occur r ed


4/40

- 4 -

pr i or t o t he r ecusal - - namel y, t he al l eged deci si on by t he

Depar t ment of Agr i cul t ur e t o al l ow t he st at e Depart ment of

Envi r onment al Pr ot ect i on t o exer ci se regul at or y power agai nst t he

f ar mer . We r each t hi s concl usi on because t he Di st r i ct Cour t f ai l ed

t o pr ovi de a suf f i ci ent gr ound f or i t s concl usi on t hat , even t hough

t he r ecor d pr ovi ded a basi s f r om whi ch a r easonabl e j ur y coul d

concl ude t hat t he Commi ssi oner ' s r et al i at or y i nt ent was a

subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or i n br i ngi ng about t hat par t i cul ar

change i n t he Depar t ment of Agr i cul t ur e' s enf or cement post ur e i n

May 2006, t he Depar t ment was sure t o have made t hat deci si on t hen

anyway. And t he Commi ss i oner has not i dent i f i ed any other basi s

f or af f i r mi ng t he Di st r i ct Cour t on t hat poi nt .

That sai d, i t i s not cl ear what damages, i f any, f ol l ow

f r om t hi s one di scr et e r espect i n whi ch we hol d t hat a j ur y coul d

r easonabl y i nf er t hat a Fi r st Amendment vi ol at i on occur r ed. And

t hat i s par t i cul ar l y t r ue gi ven t hat we concl ude t hat t he

Commi ssi oner ' s r et al i at or y i nt ent was not a subst ant i al or

mot i vat i ng f act or i n t he t hr ee separ at e r egul at or y act i ons t he

Depar t ment t ook agai nst t he f ar mer i n the mont hs t hat f ol l owed.

But as t he par t i es do not address whet her any damages may be

at t r i but ed t o t hat si ngl e, ear l i er adver se r egul at or y act i on, we

do not hazar d t o r esol ve t he damages i ssue on our own. We t hus

r everse t he gr ant of summary j udgment i n par t and remand f or

f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.


5/40

- 5 -

I .

Car l McCue i s t he dai r y f ar mer who br i ngs t he sui t . He

i s al so t he appel l ant . He had a l ong hi st or y of al l eged vi ol at i ons

of Mai ne agr i cul t ur al and envi r onment al r egul at i ons, whi ch we

br i ef l y r ecap.

Accordi ng t o government i nspect ors and publ i c

compl ai nt s, McCue woul d over f i l l hi s manur e st or age pi t s, whi ch

woul d t hen somet i mes l eak. He woul d al so spread t oo much

manur e - - somet i mes up t o si x i nches deep - - on f i el ds s l opi ng t o

a nearby prot ect ed wat erway. Wat er l ogged manure r unof f was

somet i mes so gr eat t hat i t woul d cause vi si bl e di scol or at i on i n

t he near by st r eam. One i nspect i on of hi s f ar mby aut hor i t i es al so

f ound t hi r t een dead cows l yi ng i n one of McCue' s f i el ds.

Set h Br adst r eet , I I I , i s a pot at o f ar mer and McCue' s

nei ghbor . He i s t he appel l ee. He was, at t he t i me t hat McCue

cont ends i s cr i t i cal , t he st at e' s Commi ssi oner of Agr i cul t ur e and

t hus t he head of t he Mai ne Depart ment of Agr i cul t ur e ( DOA) .

The or i gi ns of t he t ensi ons bet ween t he t wo men may be

t r aced t o at l east Oct ober 2004. At t he t i me, t he t wo wer e not i n

cont act wi t h one anot her as r egul at or and r egul at ed par t y.

Br adst r eet was not even t hen i n t he Mai ne st ate government . The

t wo men wer e i nst ead par t i es t o a pr i vat e busi ness deal .

Speci f i cal l y, McCue had l eased l and f r om Br adst r eet t o gr ow cor n


6/40

- 6 -

f or hi s cows, as McCue ran a ver y l ar ge dai r y f ar m and Br adst r eet

had f ar m l and avai l abl e t o l ease f or such a pur pose.

The t r oubl es bet ween t he t wo men began a year l at er , i n

Oct ober 2005. That was when a di sput e br oke out between t hem i n

connect i on wi t h t hat l ease. McCue t ol d Br adst r eet t hat he was

cl ai mi ng a cr op subsi dy f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of

Agr i cul t ur e (USDA) r el at ed t o crops t hat wer e gr own on t he l eased

l and. Br adst r eet , however , al so i nt ended t o cl ai m t he subsi dy on

t he basi s of hi s owner shi p of t he l and. And i t appear s t hat t he

subsi dy coul d not be cl ai med by both Br adst r eet and McCue. The

r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat , i n t he event of a di sput e over a cr op

subsi dy, a l ocal commi t t ee set up t o admi ni st er t he USDA' s cr op

subsi dy pr ogr am makes t he i ni t i al awar d det er mi nat i on. The

di sappoi nted par t y t hen may appeal up to t he USDA.

Br adst r eet admi t s t hat , upon l ear ni ng of McCue' s

i nt ent i on t o pur sue t he subsi dy, he became "ver y upset . " I n

par t i cul ar , Br adst r eet admi t s t hat , i n a phone conver sat i on wi t h

McCue, he t hr eat ened t o " r ui n" and "bur y" McCue and "put [ hi m] out

of busi ness" i n consequence of McCue' s pur sui t of t he subsi dy.

Br adst r eet , who the compl ai nt al l eges was al so t he chai r per son of

t he l ocal commi t t ee that woul d adj udi cat e the subsi dy di sput e i n

t he f i r st i nst ance, admi t s t hat he cont i nued by sayi ng: "Go t o t he

st ate commi t t ee. Do what you got t o do. Appeal i t . Damn i t .

Act i ons l i ke t hat , you shoul dn' t be i n busi ness. "


7/40

- 7 -

I n December 2005, t he l ocal commi t t ee awarded Br adst r eet

t he subsi dy. McCue t hen appeal ed t hat determi nat i on up t he l i ne

wi t hi n t he USDA. McCue di d so i n hopes of secur i ng t he subsi dy

f or hi msel f .

A f ew mont hs l at er , on March 27, 2006, whi l e McCue' s

USDA appeal was st i l l pendi ng, Br adst r eet became t he Mai ne

Commi ss i oner of Agr i cul t ur e and t he head of t he DOA. Short l y

t her eaf t er , i n Apr i l of 2006, McCue pr evai l ed i n hi s USDA appeal .

As a resul t , on Apr i l 26, 2006 - - onl y a mont h af t er Br adst r eet

had t aken the r ei ns at t he DOA - - t he USDA demanded t hat Br adst r eet

r epay appr oxi mat el y $7, 000 i n crop subsi di es.

Accordi ng t o McCue, over t he next sever al mont hs, t he

DOA - - wi t h Br adst r eet at t he hel m- - t ook f our adver se regul at or y

act i ons t hat spr ang f r om Br adst r eet ' s ear l i er - expr essed desi r e t o

t ake act i on agai nst McCue f or McCue havi ng avai l ed hi msel f of t he

USDA' s appeal s pr ocess. Speci f i cal l y, McCue cont ends t hat :

( 1) I n ear l y May 2006, t he DOA deci ded to st op pr ot ect i ng

McCue f r om t he r egul at or y aut hor i t y of t he Mai ne Depar t ment of

Envi r onment al Protect i on ( DEP) , as t he DOA al l egedl y had been doi ng

f or a number of year s despi t e concer ns about McCue' s f ai l ur e over

t hat t i me to compl y wi t h st at ut or y and r egul at or y requi r ement s f or

whi ch t he DEP had l i censi ng and enf orcement power .

( 2) On J une 27, 2006, DOA and DEP of f i ci al s i nf ormed

McCue t hat hi s f ar m was bei ng pl aced under "st r i ct scr ut i ny. "


8/40

- 8 -

( 3) I n November and December 2006, t he DOA r evoked

McCue' s provi si onal Li vest ock Operat i ons Per mi t , whi ch he needed

under st at e l aw t o oper at e hi s dai r y f ar m. See Me. Rev. St at .

t i t . 7, 4205; 01- 001 Me. Code R. ch. 565, 8( 1) .

( 4) And, f i nal l y, i n December 2006, t he DOA deni ed

McCue' s r equest f or a var i ance t hat woul d have enabl ed hi m t o

spread manur e f r omhi s cows on hi s f i el ds dur i ng t he wi nt er mont hs.

See Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 7, 4207 ( pr ohi bi t i ng spr eadi ng absent a

var i ance) .

I n t he wake of t hese act i ons, t he DEP l i censed McCue,

i nspect ed hi s pr oper t y, and i ssued sever al not i ces of vi ol at i on of

hi s l i cense condi t i ons. The DEP sent copi es of t hose not i ces t o

t he f eder al Envi r onment al Pr ot ect i on Agency ( EPA) . The EPA, ci t i ng

t he DEP' s l i censi ng, i nspect i on, and enf or cement act i ons, t hen

began admi ni st r at i ve and j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs agai nst McCue i n

December 2006 and J anuar y 2007. Those EPA proceedi ngs r esul t ed i n

McCue l osi ng hi s f ar m.

I n r esponse t o t he f our al l eged adver se act i ons, McCue

br ought t hi s sui t f or damages agai nst Br adst r eet i n f eder al

di st r i ct cour t i n Mai ne under 42 U. S. C. 1983. 1 He cl ai med

1 That st at ut e pr ovi des: "Ever y per son who, under col or of[ st at e l aw] , subj ect s, or causes t o be subj ect ed, any ci t i zen oft he Uni t ed St at es or ot her per son wi t hi n t he j ur i sdi ct i on t her eoft o t he depr i vat i on of any ri ght s, pr i vi l eges, or i mmuni t i es secur edby t he Const i t ut i on and l aws, shal l be l i abl e t o t he par t y i nj ur ed


9/40

- 9 -

Br adst r eet had vi ol at ed hi s Fi r st Amendment r i ght s t hr ough t he

adver se act i ons t he DOA t ook.

To wi n on t hat Fi r st Amendment damages act i on, McCue was

r equi r ed t o show " t hat [ he] engaged i n const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed

conduct , and t hat t hi s conduct was a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng

f actor f or t he adver se . . . deci si on. " Padi l l a- Gar c a v.

Rodr guez, 212 F. 3d 69, 74 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . Even assumi ng McCue

coul d succeed i n maki ng t hat showi ng, however , he st i l l woul d not

necessar i l y wi n. And t hat i s because Br adst r eet woul d t hen have

"t he opport uni t y t o est abl i sh t hat [ t he DOA] 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 [ pr ot ect ed

conduct ] - - commonl y r ef er r ed t o as t he Mt . Heal t hy def ense. " I d.

( ci t i ng Mt . Heal t hy Ci t y Sch. Di st . Bd. of Educ. v. Doyl e, 429

U. S. 274, 287 ( 1977) ) ; 2 see al so Acevedo- Di az v. Apont e, 1 F. 3d

62, 67 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( st at i ng t hat " t he bur den of per suasi on

i t sel f passes t o t he def endant [ ] " t o make out t he Mt . Heal t hy

def ense "once t he pl ai nt i f f pr oduces suf f i ci ent evi dence f r om

whi ch t he f act f i nder r easonabl y can i nf er t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ' s

i n an act i on at l aw, sui t i n equi t y, or ot her pr oper pr oceedi ngf or r edr ess . . . . " 42 U. S. C. 1983.

2 Padi l l a- Gar c a, 212 F. 3d at 74- 78, appl i ed t hi s t wo- st epf r amework i n t he cont ext of publ i c empl oyment , wher e i t or i gi nat ed.I n Col l i ns v. Nuzzo, 244 F. 3d 246, 251- 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) , weappl i ed t he same f r amework i n t he cont ext of government l i censi ngand r egul at i on.


10/40

- 10 -

pr ot ect ed conduct was a ' subst ant i al ' or ' mot i vat i ng' f act or

behi nd [ t he adver se act i on] " ( emphasi s r emoved) ) .

Bef or e t he case went t o t r i al , Br adst r eet moved f or

summar y j udgment . I n r ul i ng on t hat mot i on, t he Di st r i ct Cour t

accept ed the par t i es' st i pul at i on t hat McCue' s appeal t o t he USDA

of t he subsi dy det er mi nat i on was const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed

speech. The Di st r i ct Cour t t hus r ul ed t hat McCue had met one

el ement of a ret al i at i on cl ai m by showi ng t hat he had engaged i n

"pr ot ect ed conduct . " Acevedo- Di az, 1 F. 3d at 66- 67. The Di st r i ct

Cour t al so concl uded t hat McCue sat i sf i ed anot her of t he el ement s

of such a cl ai m. That was because t he Di st r i ct Cour t r ul ed t hat

al l f our of t he DOA' s act i ons about whi ch McCue compl ai ns qual i f i ed

as "adver se" act i ons because t hey woul d "deter a reasonabl y hardy

i ndi vi dual f r om exer ci si ng hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s. " Bar t on v.

Cl ancy, 632 F. 3d 9, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( or i gi nal al t er at i ons and

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen proceeded t o address t he onl y

poi nt of di sput e t hat i s bef or e us i n t hi s appeal : t he r ol e, i f

any, t hat Br adst r eet ' s pur por t ed desi r e t o retal i at e f or McCue' s

pr ot ect ed conduct pl ayed i n the al l eged adver se act i ons agai nst

McCue. To t hat end, t he Di st r i ct Cour t f i r st consi der ed whet her

McCue had r ai sed a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act wi t h r egar d t o

whet her r et al i at i on f or McCue' s pr ot ect ed conduct was a

subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or i n any of t he f our adver se


11/40

- 11 -

r egul atory act i ons t o whi ch McCue cl ai ms t he DOA subj ect ed hi m.

The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen consi der ed whet her , even i f McCue coul d

make t hat showi ng, Br adst r eet coul d nonethel ess concl usi vel y make

out t he Mt . Heal t hy def ense i n r esponse by showi ng t hat a

r easonabl e j ur y woul d be requi r ed t o concl ude f r omt he recor d t hat

t hose act i ons woul d have occur r ed even i f McCue had not engaged i n

pr ot ect ed conduct . I n per f or mi ng t hi s t wo- st ep anal ysi s, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t deci ded t o exami ne each of t he f our al l eged adver se

r egul at or y act i ons i ndependent l y.

As t o t he f i r st of t he f our al l eged adver se act i ons, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t began i t s anal ysi s as f ol l ows. The Di st r i ct Cour t

concl uded t hat t her e was a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act as t o

whet her r et al i at i on f or McCue' s pr ot ect ed conduct was a

subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or i n t he DOA' s al l eged deci si on i n

May 2006 t o al l ow t he DEP t o exer ci se r egul atory power agai nst

McCue. I n so r ul i ng, t he Di st r i ct Cour t poi nt ed t o t he f act t hat

t he DOA' s deci si on t o l et t he DEP exer ci se such aut hor i t y was made

ver y soon af t er Br adst r eet had t aken of f i ce and had l ear ned t hat

McCue had successf ul l y appeal ed t he USDA' s i ni t i al deci si on t o

awar d t he subsi dy t o Br adst r eet . The Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t hat

t hi s t i mi ng, coupl ed wi t h Br adst r eet ' s ear l i er st at ement s

pr omi si ng t o " r ui n" McCue and t he f act t hat Br adst r eet ' s r ecusal

f r omMcCue- r el at ed mat t er s came l at er , pr ovi ded a suf f i ci ent basi s


12/40

- 12 -

i n t he recor d f r omwhi ch a reasonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd f or McCue on

t hi s f i rs t s tep of t he i nqui r y.

Never t hel ess, t he Di st r i ct Cour t went on t o r ul e t hat no

r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd f or McCue as t o that adver se regul at or y

act i on. And t hat was because t he Di st r i ct Cour t r ul ed t hat

Br adst r eet had succeeded at t he second st ep of t he i nqui r y by

concl usi vel y maki ng out t he so- cal l ed Mt . Heal t hy def ense.

Speci f i cal l y, t he Di st r i ct Cour t r ul ed t hat , wi t h r espect t o t hi s

May 2006 deci si on, a r easonabl e j ur y woul d have had t o f i nd t hat

t he DOA woul d have made the same deci si on even i f McCue had not

made hi s appeal of t he subsi dy t o the USDA.

The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen t urned t o a consi der at i on of t he

t hr ee ot her adver se regul at or y act i ons t hat McCue cl ai ms

subsequent l y occur r ed. As t o each of t hese l at er - made act i ons,

t he Di st r i ct Cour t concl uded t hat - - i n par t because Br adst r eet

had by then pur por t ed t o r ecuse hi msel f f r omany mat t er s i nvol vi ng

McCue - - no r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat r et al i at or y i nt ent was

a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or i n t he DOA' s deci si onmaki ng.

And, i n any event , t he Di st r i ct Cour t al so r ul ed t hat , gi ven

McCue' s l ong r ecor d of r egul at or y noncompl i ance, a r easonabl e j ur y

woul d have t o f i nd that t he DOA woul d have t aken those t hr ee

act i ons anyway.

McCue now t i mel y appeal s f r om t hi s gr ant of summary

j udgment . He cont ends t hat t he Di st r i ct Court er r ed i n f i ndi ng


13/40

- 13 -

t hat t he recor d suppl i ed no basi s f r om whi ch a reasonabl e j ur y

coul d f i nd t hat McCue' s "const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed conduct . . .

was a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or " f or t he DOA' s t hr ee act i ons

t aken af t er Br adst r eet r ecused hi msel f f r omMcCue- r el at ed mat t er s.

Padi l l a- Gar c a, 212 F. 3d at 74. McCue al so cont ends wi t h r espect

t o al l f our act i ons t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat

Br adst r eet had concl usi vel y "est abl i sh[ ed] t hat [ t he DOA] woul d

have t aken t he same act i on[ s] r egar dl ess of [ McCue' s prot ect ed

speech] - - commonl y r ef er r ed t o as t he Mt . Heal t hy def ense. " I d.

( ci t i ng Mt Heal t hy, 429 U. S. at 287) .

I I .

Because we ar e r evi ewi ng an awar d of summar y j udgment t o

t he def endant , McCue need not show t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o pr evai l

on hi s const i t ut i onal cl ai m i n or der t o succeed i n hi s appeal t o

us. I nst ead, we may af f i r m t he gr ant of summary j udgment agai nst

McCue onl y i f we, l i ke t he Di st r i ct Cour t , concl ude t hat " t he

r ecor d shows t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act

and t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. "

McGr at h v. Tavar es, 757 F. 3d 20, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) , cer t . deni ed,

135 S. Ct . 1183 ( 2015) . I n maki ng t hat det er mi nat i on, mor eover ,

" [ o] ur r evi ew of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y j udgment i s

de novo, dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of t he non-

movi ng par t y whi l e i gnor i ng concl usory al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e

i nf er ences, and unsuppor t ed specul at i on. " Shaf mast er v. Uni t ed


14/40

- 14 -

St at es, 707 F. 3d 130, 135 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

I I I .

I n eval uat i ng t he r ecor d wi t h t hi s st andar d i n mi nd, we

f ol l ow t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s l ead. We t hus f ocus f i r st on t he DOA' s

al l eged deci si on i n May 2006 to t ur n McCue over t o t he DEP f or

r egul at or y enf or cement . We t hen consi der t he t hr ee ot her al l eged

adver se r egul at or y act i ons - - each of whi ch occur r ed mont hs l at er

- - t hat McCue cont ends al so wer e t aken i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st

Amendment . Fi nal l y, we consi der McCue' s cont ent i on t hat t he

Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n consi der i ng each of t hese f our act i ons i n

t hi s " compart ment al i ze[ d] " manner and t hus t hat we shoul d not

r epeat t he mi st ake by consi der i ng t hem onl y one- by- one.

A.

The f i r st adver se act i on t hat McCue at t r i but es t o

r et al i at i on f or hi s pr ot ect ed conduct i s t he DOA' s al l eged deci si on

i n May 2006 t o st op pr otect i ng McCue f r omDEP r egul at i on. We agr ee

wi t h t he Di st r i ct Cour t t hat a r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat

McCue had made t he requi si t e showi ng that such r etal i at i on was a

subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or f or such a deci si on. We di sagr ee,

however , wi t h t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s f ur t her concl usi on t hat , on

t hi s r ecor d, a r easonabl e j ur y woul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t hat

t he DOA woul d have made t hat May 2006 deci si on even i f McCue had

not engaged i n t he pr otected conduct .


15/40

- 15 -

1.

To expl ai n why we bel i eve t he Di st r i ct Cour t was r i ght

t o concl ude t hat , as an i ni t i al mat t er , a j ur y coul d f i nd t hat

McCue had shown t hat r et al i at i on was a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng

f act or i n t he DOA' s May 2006 deci si on, we need t o l ay a bi t of

gr oundwor k. We expl ai n f i r st why we bel i eve t he r ecor d coul d

r easonabl y suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat t he r el evant enf or cement post ur e

of t he DOA di d i n f act shi f t soon af t er Br adst r eet t ook the hel m

at t he DOA. We t hen expl ai n why we bel i eve t he r ecor d al so pr ovi des

suppor t - - r el at i vel y weak t hough i t i s - - f or a r easonabl e

i nf er ence t hat such a shi f t may be at t r i but ed t o Br adst r eet ' s

desi r e t o r et al i at e agai nst McCue f or appeal i ng t he USDA cr op

subsi dy r at her t han t o a si mpl e ( and whol l y war r ant ed) desi r e to

br i ng McCue i nt o compl i ance wi t h pr evai l i ng l egal r equi r ement s.

The r ecor d does suppl y evi dence f r om whi ch a j ury coul d

i nf er t hat , bef or e Br adst r eet came on t he scene at t he DOA, t he

Depar t ment had a pol i cy i n pl ace of pr ot ect i ng McCue f r om DEP

r egul at i on. Ther e i s no doubt t hat , up unt i l t hat t i me, McCue was

har dl y a model f ar mer . To t he cont r ar y, t he r ecor d shows t hat

McCue' s f armi ng pr act i ces had l ong generated concern about t he

f ar m' s egr egi ous f ai l ur es t o compl y wi t h Mai ne' s agr i cul t ur al and

envi r onment al r egul at i ons. These concer ns st r et ched back t o at

l east t he year 2000, and, i n f act , t he r ecor d shows compl ai nt s

about t hose pr act i ces dat i ng back as f ar as 1985. Yet , despi t e


16/40

- 16 -

McCue' s seemi ngl y poor hi st or y of compl i ance, t he recor d pr ovi des

a basi s f r om whi ch a j ur y coul d concl ude t hat t he DOA had al l t he

whi l e pr ot ect ed McCue f r om DEP enf or cement act i ons unt i l at l east

May of 2006, and t hus unt i l af t er Br adst r eet t ook over at t he DOA,

whi ch di d not occur unt i l l at e Mar ch of t hat year .

I n so concl udi ng, we r ecogni ze t hat t her e i s - - as

Br adst r eet cont ends - - evi dence i n t he recor d t hat shows t hat t he

DOA and the DEP made some ef f or t s t o cl amp down on McCue bef or e

Br adst r eet t ook up hi s post at t he DOA. I n t hat r egar d, i t does

appear t hat i n t he l at e summer of 2005, t he DOA worked wi t h t he

DEP i n t aki ng act i on agai nst McCue.

Speci f i cal l y, t he recor d shows t hat t he DEP and t he DOA

had j oi nt l y i nspect ed McCue' s pr oper t y i n August 2005. And, as

shown i n an August 26 l et t er t o a l ocal act i vi st , i t appear s t he

t wo agenci es had j oi nt l y deci ded at t hat t i me t o "devel op[ ] a set

of shor t t er mcor r ect i ve act i ons as wel l as mor e subst ant i al l onger

t er m changes t o i nsur e t he di schar ge [ i nt o a st r eam bor der i ng

McCue' s f ar m] t hat occur r ed t hi s spr i ng wi l l not be r epeat ed. "

Fur t her , t he recor d shows t hat on August 29, 2005, t he DEP sent a

l et t er t o McCue i ssui ng a not i ce of vi ol at i on of Mai ne

envi r onment al l aw pr ohi bi t i ng t he di schar ge of pol l ut ant s ( such as

manur e) i nt o bodi es of wat er wi t hout a per mi t . See Me. Rev. St at .

t i t . 38, 413( 1) .


17/40

- 17 -

But f ar f r om concl usi vel y showi ng t hat t he DOA had

deci ded t o al l ow t he DEP t o t ake enf orcement act i on agai nst McCue

bef or e Br adst r eet t ook over t he Depar t ment , t he r ecor d al so

cont ai ns evi dence suggest i ng t he exact opposi t e. I n par t i cul ar ,

t he r ecor d pr ovi des suppor t f or a concl usi on t hat t hi s DEP

enf or cement act i on i n August 2005 cat al yzed a sever e i nt er -

depar t ment al conf l i ct between t he DOA and t he DEP. And, i n

addi t i on, t he r ecor d pr ovi des suppor t f or t he concl usi on t hat t he

t wo depar t ment s soon t her eaf t er r esol ved t he di sput e over t he DEP' s

t aki ng act i on agai nst McCue thr ough a j oi nt agr eement t hat pr ovi ded

t hat t he DOA, al one, woul d t ake t he l ead on al l enf or cement agai nst

McCue and t hat t he DEP enf orcement act i ons woul d "evaporate. " By

Febr uar y 22, 2006, mor eover , an emai l f r om a DEP of f i ci al , J ames

Cr owl ey, showed t hat Cr owl ey at t hat t i me t hought t he DEP "can' t

' t ake over ' t he case, f or enf or cement or uni l at er al l i censi ng,

unl ess r equest ed t o do so f r om Agr i cul t ur e. "

Thus, f ar f r om showi ng concl usi vel y t hat t he DOA had

gi ven t he gr een l i ght t o t he DEP' s exer ci se of r egul at or y power as

ear l y as August of 2005, t he recor d al so suppor t s t he cont r ar y

concl usi on: t hat t he DOA was st i l l pr ot ect i ng McCue f r om DEP

enf orcement by t hat mont h' s end. And t he r ecor d al so pr ovi des

suppor t f or t he f ur t her concl usi on t hat t he DOA had mai nt ai ned

t hi s pr ot ect i ve post ur e unt i l af t er Br adst r eet came on boar d. That

i s because ther e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o i ndi cat e t hat any


18/40

- 18 -

such agr eement bet ween t he DOA and the DEP t o bl ock t he DEP f r om

asser t i ng i t s aut hor i t y was no l onger i n ef f ect when Br adst r eet

arr i ved at t he DOA. The r ecor d t hus does not pr ecl ude a r easonabl e

j ury f r om concl udi ng t hat t he DOA cont i nued t o prevent t he DEP

f r omexer ci si ng r egul at or y power agai nst McCue up unt i l Br adst r eet

t ook of f i ce.

Thi s backgr ound concer ni ng t he st at e of pl ay at t he t i me

t hat Br adst r eet t ook over at t he DOA mat t er s f or t he f ol l owi ng

r eason. Ther e ar e sever al emai l s f r om May of 2006 - - and t hus

af t er Br adst r eet t ook over - - t hat ar e i n t he r ecor d and t hat

i ndi cat e t hat t he DOA had by t hat t i me st opped i nt er cedi ng wi t h

t he DEP on McCue' s behal f . I n par t i cul ar , an emai l f r om Cr owl ey,

t he DEP of f i ci al , dat ed May 10 not ed t hat i t " l ooks l i ke

Agr i cul t ur e i s goi ng t o gi ve [ McCue] up af t er al l . " And Cr owl ey' s

emai l s f r om May 30 and 31 t o a l ocal communi t y act i vi st conf i r med

t hat t he DOA had "handed [ McCue] over" t o t he DEP f or l i censi ng

and enf orcement .

Gi ven t hese emai l s, a r easonabl e j ur y coul d i nf er t hat

a shi f t i n t he DOA' s enf or cement post ur e r el at i ve t o t he DEP had

occur r ed i n May 2006 - - or , i n ot her wor ds, onl y once Br adst r eet

had t aken over at t he DOA. Cr owl ey' s May 10, 2006, emai l comport s

wi t h t hat concl usi on by i ndi cat i ng - - i n t he pr esent and pr esent -

pr ogr essi ve t enses - - t hat i t "l ooks l i ke Agr i cul t ur e i s goi ng t o

gi ve [ McCue] up af t er al l . " And so, t oo, does Cr owl ey' s subsequent


19/40

- 19 -

emai l at mont h' s end speaki ng i n t he past t ense about how McCue by

t hat t i me had been "handed over . " Hence, t he r ecor d does not

compel a f i ndi ng t hat t he al l eged May 2006 shi f t wi t hi n t he DOA of

whi ch McCue compl ai ns had occur r ed pr i or t o Br adst r eet t aki ng

of f i ce. And t hus t he r ecor d does not r equi r e t he concl usi on t hat

t he shi f t occur r ed t oo ear l y f or i t t o have been due t o

Br adst r eet ' s desi r e t o r et al i at e agai nst McCue. See Col l i ns v.

Nuzzo, 244 F. 3d 246, 252 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( concl udi ng t hat pl ai nt i f f

seeki ng busi ness l i cense had not shown r et al i at i on because "[ t ] he

st at ement s at t r i but ed t o [ a ci t y counci l or and def endant ] wer e i n

1991, bef or e [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] f i l ed a l awsui t " and engaged i n

pr otected conduct ( emphasi s added) ) .

2.

Wi t h t he t i mi ng of t he shi f t out of t he way, we come,

t hen, t o t he next i ssue. And t hat i ssue i s whet her t he r ecor d

suppl i es suf f i ci ent suppor t f or a r easonabl e j ur y t o concl ude t hat

McCue has made hi s r equi r ed showi ng that r etal i at i on was a

subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or i n br i ngi ng about t hi s al l eged

May 2006 shi f t i n t he DOA' s r egul atory enf orcement post ur e toward

t he DEP. As to t hi s i ssue, we, l i ke t he Di st r i ct Cour t , concl ude

t hat t he r ecor d does pr ovi de t he basi s f or a r easonabl e i nf er ence

t o t hat ef f ect . Thr ee pi eces of evi dence, vi ewed cumul at i vel y,

l ead us t o t hi s concl usi on.


20/40

- 20 -

The f i r st pi ece of evi dence i s Br adst r eet ' s concessi on

t hat he became "very upset " and t hr eat ened t o "r ui n" and "bur y"

McCue and "put [ hi m] out of busi ness" when he l ear ned i n l ate

Oct ober 2005 that McCue woul d chal l enge hi m f or t he crop subsi dy.

Of cour se, we do not si mpl y pr esume t hat t he t hr eat s Br adst r eet

expr essed t oward McCue as a pr i vat e busi nessman became hi s of f i ci al

r et al i at or y i nt ent i n l at e Mar ch 2006 when Br adst r eet t ook t he

r ei ns at t he DOA. Af t er al l , gover nment of f i ci al s ought t o l eave

t hei r pr i vat e pr ej udi ces at t he door upon ascendi ng t o publ i c

of f i ce.

But i n decl i ni ng to adopt such a pr esumpt i on about

Br adst r eet ' s mi ndset t owards McCue as Commi ss i oner and head of t he

DOA, we need not doubt t he possi bi l i t y of Br adst r eet ' s per si st i ng

r et al i at or y i nt ent . I n t hi s case, af t er al l , such i nt ent was

expr essed st r ongl y and i n t er ms t hat announced Br adst r eet ' s

i nt ent i on t o t ake adver se act i on agai nst McCue i n t he f ut ur e.

Thus, Br adst r eet ' s concessi on about t he st at ement s he made i n l at e

Oct ober 2005 about what he i nt ended t o do t o McCue suppl i es at

l east a f oundat i on, i n l i ght of t he evi dence t hat f ol l ows, f or

i nf er r i ng t hat Br adst r eet har bor ed a r et al i at or y i nt ent as

Commi ss i oner i n ear l y May 2006.

The second pi ece of evi dence i s t he cl ose proxi mi t y i n

t i me between Apr i l 26, 2006 - - t he moment Br adst r eet r ecei ved t he

f i r st l et t er f r om t he USDA not i f yi ng hi m t hat McCue had pr evai l ed


21/40

- 21 -

i n hi s appeal and demandi ng repayment of about $7, 000 i n cr op

subsi di es - - and t he DOA' s al l eged shi f t i n enf or cement pol i cy,

f i r st r ef er enced on May 10, 2006. Ther e was a t i me- l ag of l ess

t han t wo weeks bet ween t he moment Br adst r eet l ear ned t hat he had

l ost t he USDA subsi dy di sput e ( about whi ch he had pr evi ousl y

t hr eat ened t o "bur y" McCue) and t he Cr owl ey emai l document i ng t hat

t he DOA woul d hand McCue over t o t he DEP f or t he possi bl e exer ci se

of l i censi ng and enf or cement aut hor i t y.

To be sure, f i ve mont hs passed bet ween t he i ni t i at i on of

McCue' s USDA appeal i n December 2005 and the deci si on t o al l ow t he

DEP t o pursue McCue t hat Cr owl ey' s May 10, 2006, emai l had

r ef er enced. That l ag mi ght be t oo much, i n t hi s case, on i t s own

t o suppor t a reasonabl e i nf er ence t hat r et al i at i on was t he

subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or i n t he DOA act i ng as i t di d. But

Br adst r eet di d not t ake of f i ce unt i l Mar ch 27, 2006. The cl oseness

i n t i me bet ween Br adst r eet ' s t aki ng of f i ce, l ear ni ng t hat he had

l ost t he appeal , and t he deci si on r egar di ng t he DEP' s aut hor i t y

vi s- - vi s McCue t hus does of f er some ci r cumst ant i al evi dence f r om

whi ch a j ur y coul d i nf er t hat Br adst r eet used hi s newf ound

r egul atory power as soon as he coul d t o make good on hi s ear l i er

st at ed i nt ent i on t o "bur y" McCue. See Gui l l ot y- Per ez v. Pi er l ui si ,

339 F. 3d 43, 57 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( f i ndi ng under t he ci r cumst ances

of t hat case that "pr oxi mi t y i n t i me bet ween t he pr ot ect ed act i vi t y

and t he al l eged r et al i at i on i s ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of


22/40

- 22 -

mot i ve") ; Acevedo- Di az, 1 F. 3d at 69 ( not i ng t hat " [ m] er e t empor al

pr oxi mi t y" on i t s own was i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh subst ant i al or

mot i vat i ng causat i on i n t he ci r cumst ances of t hat Fi r st Amendment

r et al i at i on cl ai m, but "t i mi ng . . . may be suggest i ve of

di scr i mi nat or y ani mus" i n conj unct i on wi t h ot her evi dence

( ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

The t hi r d and f i nal pi ece of evi dence i n McCue' s f avor

on t hi s poi nt i s what t he r ecor d shows - - and f ai l s t o show - -

about who made t he deci si on to al l ow t he DEP t o pur sue McCue and

why t hat deci si on was made. We st ar t wi t h t he quest i on of who

made i t .

Br adst r eet cor r ect l y poi nt s out t hat t he r ecor d cont ai ns

no di r ect evi dence that shows Br adst r eet was r esponsi bl e f or t he

deci si on i n l at e May t o al l ow t he DEP to t ake enf or cement act i on

agai nst McCue. But Br adst r eet ' s deput y, Ned Por t er , st at ed t hat

t he deci si on t o hand McCue over t o t he DEP woul d have come f r om

hi gh i n t he DOA hi er ar chy, and Por t er di d not r ecal l maki ng t hat

deci si on hi msel f or communi cat i ng i t t o someone el se. Por t er di d

st ate t hat he had no reason t o bel i eve Br adst r eet made the

deci si on. But Por t er was unabl e t o i dent i f y who di d make i t . A

r easonabl e t r i er of f act coul d t hus i nf er t hat Br adst r eet pl ayed

a r ol e i n t hat deci si on.

As t o why t hat deci si on was made, t he recor d cont ai ns no

di r ect cont emporaneous evi dence showi ng t he act ual r eason.


23/40


24/40


25/40

- 25 -

Nei t her of t hese f act s, however , compel s a r easonabl e f act - f i nder

t o concl ude that t he deci si on by t he DOA i n May 2006 t o al l ow DEP

enf orcement woul d have occur r ed even absent McCue' s pr ot ect ed

conduct .

Fi r st , t he Di st r i ct Cour t r el i ed on evi dence concer ni ng

some j oi nt act i on t hat t he DOA and t he DEP had t aken regardi ng

McCue bef ore Br adst r eet came t o t he DOA. The r ecor d shows, as we

have ment i oned ear l i er , t he two depar t ment s car r i ed out a j oi nt

i nspect i on of McCue' s pr oper t y i n August 2005. The Di st r i ct Cour t

t hen r el i ed on evi dence suppor t i ng t he concl usi on t hat , f ol l owi ng

t hat i nspect i on, t he t wo depar t ment s had j oi nt l y deci ded t o

"devel op[ ] a set of shor t t er m cor r ect i ve act i ons as wel l as mor e

subst ant i al l onger t er m changes t o i nsur e t he di schar ge [ i nt o t he

st r eam near McCue' s pr oper t y] t hat occur r ed t hi s spr i ng wi l l not

be r epeat ed. " ( Second al t er at i on i n or i gi nal . ) The Di st r i ct Cour t

concl uded t hat t hi s evi dence showed t he DOA was al r eady i n t he

pr ocess of l et t i ng t he DEP exer ci se i t s aut hor i t y t o br i ng McCue

i nt o compl i ance wel l bef ore Br adst r eet came on t he scene at t he

DOA.

But we do not bel i eve such evi dence i s as concl usi ve as

t he Di st r i ct Cour t bel i eved i t t o be. A l et t er f r om a r egul at or

t o an act i vi st pr omi si ng t o wor k towar d br i ngi ng McCue i nt o

compl i ance need not compel t he concl usi on t hat t he DOA woul d

act ual l y t ur n McCue over t o the DEP f or l i censi ng and enf or cement .


26/40

- 26 -

Fur t her , as we have not ed, af t er t he DEP sent i t s August 29 l et t er

t o McCue i ssui ng a not i ce of vi ol at i on wi t h r espect t o wat er

di scharge regul at i ons, t he DOA and t he DEP appear t o have reached

a j oi nt agr eement . The r ecor d suggest s, mor eover , t hat t hi s

agr eement pr ovi ded t hat t he DOA, al one, woul d t ake t he l ead on al l

enf orcement and t he DEP enf orcement act i ons woul d "evaporate. "

Thus, r at her t han concl usi vel y showi ng t hat t he DOA

woul d have made t he May 2006 deci si on even i f McCue had not

appeal ed t he subsi dy det er mi nat i on, t he r ecor d pr ovi des a basi s

f r om whi ch a r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat a modus vi vendi

bet ween t he DOA and the DEP had been r eached bef or e Br adst r eet

t ook of f i ce. And t he r ecor d al so pr ovi des suppor t f or t he

i nf er ence t hat t hi s pact r emai ned i n pl ace when Br adst r eet ar r i ved

at t he DOA, t her eby ensur i ng ( absent some change) t hat t he DOA

woul d ser ve as t he gatekeeper f or any act i on by t he DEP agai nst

McCue - - a gatekeepi ng r ol e by t he DOA t hat , t he r ecor d al so

pr ovi des a basi s t o concl ude, had t o t hat poi nt kept t he DEP f r om

st r i ki ng out on i t s own. Thus, t he r ecor d does not

show - - concl usi vel y - - t hat t he DOA had al r eady f r eed up t he DEP

and t hus t hat t he May 2006 deci si on t o l et t he DEP assert

r egul at or y power over McCue woul d have occur r ed even i f McCue had

never engaged i n t he pr otected conduct t hat he cont ends l ed

Br adst r eet t o r et al i at e agai nst hi m.


27/40

- 27 -

The Di st r i ct Cour t , i n r ul i ng f or Br adst r eet , al so not ed

t hat Shel l ey Doak, a DOA of f i ci al , st at ed i n an af f i davi t t hat

when she became head of t he manure management pr ogr am i n Sept ember

2005, t he DOA was "under i ncr easi ng pr essur e t o take measur es t o

addr ess" McCue' s manur e pr obl ems. But t hi s evi dence, t oo, i s not

concl usi ve wi t h r espect t o t he Mt . Heal t hy def ense.

" [ I ] ncr easi ng pr essure" coul d l ead t o enf or cement

agai nst McCue, encour agement f or McCue t o t ake gr eat er st eps t oward

compl i ance whi l e st i l l t ol er at i ng si gni f i cant noncompl i ance by

hi m, or no enf or cement of any ki nd. Nor i s t her e any i ndi cat i on

i n t he r ecor d t hat woul d compel a f act - f i nder t o concl ude t hat

such " i ncr easi ng pr essur e" i n Sept ember 2005 ul t i mat el y l ed t he

DOA - - at some poi nt pr i or t o Br adst r eet becomi ng Commi ss i oner - -

t o br eak t he no- enf orcement agr eement wi t h t he DEP t hat a j ur y

r easonabl y coul d f i nd t he DOA had ear l i er r eached. Thus, t he

r ecor d evi dence concerni ng Doak' s st atement s about i ncr easi ng

pr essur e on t he DOA t o take act i on agai nst McCue al so does not

suf f i ce t o show t hat Br adst r eet i s ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment on

t he basi s of a Mt . Heal t hy def ense as t o thi s adver se act i on.

Al t hough t he Di st r i ct Cour t r el i ed sol el y on t he t wo

f act s di scussed above, Br adst r eet ur ges us t o uphol d t he Di st r i ct

Cour t on an al t er nat i ve, br oader gr ound f or f i ndi ng t he Mt . Heal t hy

def ense concl usi vel y pr oved - - namel y, t hat t he DOA woul d have

t aken t hat May 2006 act i on anyway because of McCue' s egregi ous


28/40

- 28 -

noncompl i ance wi t h appl i cabl e r egul at i ons. But , havi ng consi der ed

t hat ar gument , we do not f i nd t hat i t pr ovi des a suf f i ci ent

al t er nat i ve basi s f or af f i r mi ng t he Di st r i ct Cour t .

The Mt . Heal t hy def ense, at t he summar y j udgment st age,

r equi r es Br adst r eet t o show t hat t he r ecor d woul d compel a

r easonabl e j ur y to f i nd t hat t he adver se act i on woul d have occur r ed

anyway, not merel y t hat such act i on woul d have been war r ant ed

anyway. To hol d other wi se woul d expand t he Mt . Heal t hy def ense

beyond i t s rat i onal e. The pur pose of t he Mt . Heal t hy def ense i s

t o ensur e t hat a pl ai nt i f f i s not put "i n a bet t er posi t i on as a

r esul t of t he exer ci se of const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed conduct t han

he woul d have occupi ed had he done nothi ng. " Mt . Heal t hy, 429

U. S. at 285. That i s, t hi s def ense t o a Fi r st Amendment

r et al i at i on cl ai m i s concer ned wi t h what woul d have happened

anyway. But f ocusi ng onl y on what regul ators coul d have

done - - r ather t han what r egul ators woul d have done - - can have

t he ef f ect of wr ongl y excusi ng Fi r st Amendment r et al i at i on even

wher e the pl ai nt i f f woul d not have suf f er ed adver se act i on absent

hi s pr ot ect ed conduct .

Her e, t he di st i nct i on between "coul d have" and "woul d

have" mat t er s as f ol l ows. The r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat r egul at or y

act i on agai nst McCue woul d have been j ust as warr ant ed bef ore

Br adst r eet t ook over at t he DOA as i t was af t er . Concer ns about

McCue' s f arm were not new. They were l ongst andi ng. Nor were t hey


29/40

- 29 -

newl y ser i ous. The st andi ng concer ns about past vi ol at i ons wer e

t hemsel ves subst ant i al . Yet t he r ecor d pr ovi des a basi s f r omwhi ch

a j ur y coul d r easonabl y concl ude t hat t he deci si on t o t ake t he

adver se act i on i nvol vi ng t he DEP di d not occur unt i l May 2006 - -

and t hus onl y af t er Br adst r eet came to the DOA and l ear ned of hi s

l oss i n McCue' s USDA appeal .

Br adst r eet must t hus expl ai n why a r easonabl e j ur y woul d

have t o concl ude that McCue' s pr obl emat i c f ar mi ng pr act i ces al one

woul d have t r i ggered t he May 2006 deci si on t o f r ee up the DEP t o

t ake act i on when t hey had not t r i gger ed such act i on bef or e. But

t hat showi ng i s not an easy one f or Br adst r eet t o make on t hi s

r ecor d. The DOA possessed enf orcement di scr et i on. And t he r ecor d

evi dence at l east suggest s t hat , unt i l Br adst r eet ar r i ved at t he

DOA, t he DOA had a l ong hi st ory of pr ot ect i ng McCue i n par t i cul ar

f r omDEP enf orcement notwi t hst andi ng t he apparent gr ounds t hat t he

DOA had f or assumi ng a more aggr essi ve post ur e ear l i er . Thus, i n

l i ght of t he r ecor d, Br adst r eet has not made t he showi ng t hat he

must t o suppor t a gr ant of summary j udgment based on t he Mt .

Heal t hy def ense. Cf . Tr aver s v. Fl i ght Ser vs. & Sys. , I nc. , 737

F. 3d 144, 148- 50 (1st Ci r . 2013) ( denyi ng summary j udgment because

empl oyer ' s pol i ci es " l ef t r oom f or j udgment and di scret i on" wi t h

r egar d t o whet her t o puni sh pl ai nt i f f empl oyee' s act i ons, and

empl oyer had not shown t hat i t "woul d" have f i r ed empl oyee even i f

i t coul d) .


30/40


31/40

- 31 -

i n t he DOA' s r egul at or y post ur e woul d be f or t hcomi ng at t hat t i me.

I t t hus "r emai ns pl ausi bl e t hat t he pr e- exi st i ng r et al i at or y

mot i ve t i pped t he scal es" when t he DOA deci ded i n May 2006 t o l et

t he DEP pr oceed wi t h enf or cement act i ons. Traver s, 737 F. 3d at

148.

B.

Ther e r emai n t hree ot her adver se r egul at or y act i ons

about whi ch McCue compl ai ns. As t o t hese, t he Di st r i ct Cour t

concl uded t hat , unl i ke t he f i r st act i on j ust consi der ed, no

r easonabl e t r i er of f act coul d concl ude t hat Br adst r eet ' s

r et al i at or y i nt ent was a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or i n any

of t hem. And t hat i s i n par t because, by t hen, Br adst r eet had

r ecused hi msel f f r om al l f ut ur e McCue- r el at ed mat t er s. Her e, we

agr ee wi t h t he Di st r i ct Cour t .

The r ecor d shows t hat on or about May 25 - - when

Br adst r eet l ear ned t hat McCue had asked f or a meet i ng wi t h

Br adst r eet t o cl ear t he ai r - - Br adst r eet t ol d hi s deput y, Ned

Por t er , t hat he woul d be r ecusi ng hi msel f f r omanyt hi ng r el at ed t o

McCue because of a sour ed busi ness r el at i onshi p he had had wi t h

McCue i n t he past .

The t i mi ng of t he r ecusal i s si gni f i cant . Unl i ke t he

change i n DOA pol i cy i n May 2006, Br adst r eet ' s r ecusal on or about

May 25 cl ear l y pr eceded t he ot her t hr ee adver se act i ons: t he

meet i ng i n l at e J une 2006 at whi ch McCue was t ol d he was under


32/40

- 32 -

"st r i ct scrut i ny, " t he DOA' s r evocat i on of McCue' s pr ovi si onal

Li vest ock Oper at i ons Per mi t i n November and December 2006, and t he

DOA' s deni al of McCue' s appl i cat i on f or t he wi nt er - spr eadi ng

var i ance i n December 2006.

Al t hough McCue does not di sput e t hat Br adst r eet t ol d

Por t er he was r ecusi ng hi msel f f r om McCue- r el at ed mat t er s on or

about May 25, 2006, McCue cont ends t hat t he r ecusal does not

i nsul at e Br adst r eet f r om l i abi l i t y f or t he r emai ni ng adver se

act i ons. McCue expl ai ns t hat " [ t ] he hor se ( Br adst r eet ' s

r et al i ator y ani mus) was al r eady out of t he bar n when the bar n door

was al l eged cl osed by t he r ecusal . " McCue t hus ar gues that

Br adst r eet ' s empl oyees at t he DOA woul d pr edi ct abl y have t r i ed t o

do what t hey knew t he boss want ed, even af t er t he boss' s f ormal

r ecusal . Or , at l east , he cont ends a j ur y r easonabl y coul d so

f i nd.

But we do not agr ee such an i nf erence woul d be r easonabl e

on t hi s r ecor d. We have al r eady concl uded t hat t he r ecor d woul d

per mi t a reasonabl e i nf er ence, despi t e the absence of any di r ect

suppor t i ng evi dence, t hat Br adst r eet ' s r et al i at or y i nt ent pl ayed

a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng rol e i n a change i n DOA enf or cement

pol i cy i n May 2006. But t he r ecor d does not pr ovi de si mi l ar

suppor t f or t he f ur t her i nf er ence McCue cont ends a j ur y coul d al so

make as t o t he post - r ecusal act i ons.


33/40

- 33 -

McCue i dent i f i es no st atement i n t he r ecor d by anyone

wi t hi n t he DOA - - or by anyone el se - - i ndi cat i ng t hat McCue had

ever suggest ed t o any of hi s empl oyees t hat t hey t ake act i on

agai nst McCue, l et al one t hat t hey do so because of what McCue had

done t o hi m i n appeal i ng t he subsi dy. Nor , despi t e McCue' s

cont ent i on t o t he cont r ar y, does t he way i n whi ch Br adst r eet

communi cat ed t he r ecusal r equi r e a di f f er ent concl usi on.

As t he Di st r i ct Cour t not ed, a r easonabl e t r i er of f act

cer t ai nl y coul d i nf er t hat when Por t er t ol d McCue at t he J une 27

meet i ng t hat Br adst r eet was r ecused f or "har d f eel i ngs" t hat "coul d

not be wor ked out , " ot her DEP and DOA of f i ci al s, al so pr esent at

t he meet i ng, l ear ned about t he "har d f eel i ngs" r eason f or

Br adst r eet ' s r ecusal . But t hat i nf er ence i s not enough. Evi dence

t hat Br adst r eet expl ai ned t o ot her s why he di d not want t o

par t i ci pat e i n r egul at or y deci si ons about McCue - - pr esumabl y f or

f ear t hat hi s i mpar t i al i t y i n maki ng such deci si ons mi ght be

quest i oned - - har dl y const i t ut es evi dence t hat Br adst r eet wi shed

t o communi cat e t o others t hat t hey shoul d make deci si ons about

McCue on t he basi s of t he same "har d f eel i ngs" t hat Br adst r eet

har bor ed. We t hus do not t hi nk t hat a r easonabl e t r i er of f act

coul d i nf er t hat Br adst r eet ' s means of r ecusi ng hi msel f amount ed

t o a subt l e but ef f ect i ve si gnal t o st af f t o go af t er McCue, or

t hat t he DOA of f i ci al s t hen act ed i n conf or mi t y wi t h t hei r

under st andi ng t hat t hei r boss want ed t hem t o do so.


34/40

- 34 -

McCue ci t es Traver s v. Fl i ght Ser vs. & Sys. , I nc. , 737

F. 3d 144 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat a t r i er of f act

coul d i nf er t hat DOA empl oyees woul d t r y t o car r y out t he

r et al i at or y desi r es of t hei r boss. I n Tr aver s, a CEO had,

al l egedl y, r epeat edl y t ol d sever al under l i ngs t o "get r i d" of an

empl oyee because of how much money t he empl oyee' s l awsui t , t he

pr ot ect ed conduct i n t hat case, was cost i ng t he company. I d. at

145. We concl uded t hat " [ a] r at i onal j ur or coul d concl ude t hat

such st r ongl y hel d and r epeat edl y voi ced wi shes of t he ki ng, so t o

speak, l i kel y became wel l known t o t hose cour t i er s who mi ght r i d

hi m of a bot her some under l i ng. " I d. at 147.

But Tr aver s of f er s McCue no hel p. I n f act , Tr aver s shows

what McCue i s mi ss i ng. Unl i ke i n Travers, McCue has of f ered no

evi dence of Br adst r eet expr essi ng a desi r e t o go af t er McCue t o

any of hi s st af f , much l ess connect i ng t hat desi r e t o pr ot ect ed

conduct or expr essi ng t hose vi ews st r ongl y or r epeat edl y.

Br adst r eet ' s onl y st at ement bet r ayi ng hi s desi r e t o cause McCue

har m occur r ed i n a pr i vat e set t i ng bef or e Br adst r eet had t aken

of f i ce. And t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat t he onl y one wi t hi n ear shot

was McCue hi msel f .

Mor eover , t he r ecor d shows t hat once i n of f i ce, f ar f r om

seemi ng t o do al l t hat he coul d t o ensur e t hat McCue woul d be

"bur [ i ed] , " Br adst r eet r ecused hi msel f f r om mat t er s i nvol vi ng

McCue - - al bei t pot ent i al l y onl y af t er an i ni t i al , unexpl ai ned


35/40

- 35 -

deci si on r egardi ng DEP l i censi ng and enf orcement had been made.

Thus, Br adst r eet ' s r ef er ence t o past "har d f eel i ngs" i n car r yi ng

out hi s r ecusal does not per mi t t he sort of r easonabl e i nf er ence

r egar di ng t he connect i on bet ween t he boss' s r et al i at or y i nt ent and

deci si ons made by l ower- l evel empl oyees t hat we permi t t ed i n

Tr avers.

Nor i s t hi s a case i n whi ch i t woul d be r easonabl e t o

i nf er t hat some i l l egi t i mat e reason f or t aki ng act i on must have

been a t r i gger f or what t he DOA di d i n t aki ng t hese t hr ee post -

r ecusal act i ons. The expl anat i on f or t he DOA of f i ci al s t aki ng t he

t hr ee post - r ecusal act i ons agai nst McCue i s not har d t o f at hom.

Rat her , t her e was cl ear l y a l egi t i mat e pr edi cat e f or t hem. McCue

had generated gr eat concern about an egr egi ous r ecor d of

noncompl i ance wi t h agr i cul t ur al and envi r onment al r egul at i ons.

And each adver se act i on f ol l owi ng t he ear l y- May change i n

enf or cement pol i cy came f ur t her and f ur t her i n t i me f r om McCue' s

pr ot ect ed conduct . That passage of t i me f ur t her er odes any basi s

f or i nf er r i ng t he r et al i at i on was a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng

f act or i n what t he DOA di d post - r ecusal .

Thus, any such i nf er ence concer ni ng t he DOA' s post -

r ecusal conduct woul d necessari l y rest on j ust t he ki nd of

unsuppor t ed specul at i on t hat i s not enough t o overcome a mot i on

f or summary j udgment . See Shaf mast er , 707 F. 3d at 135 ( not i ng

t hat , i n r evi ewi ng a gr ant of summary j udgement , we "draw[ ] al l


36/40

- 36 -

r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of t he non- movi ng par t y whi l e

i gnor i ng concl usor y al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, and

unsuppor t ed specul at i on" ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) . We t her ef or e concl ude, l i ke t he Di st r i ct Cour t , t hat

no r easonabl e t r i er of f act coul d concl ude on t hi s r ecor d t hat

Br adst r eet ' s r et al i at or y i nt ent pl ayed a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng

r ol e i n t he thr ee, post - r ecusal adver se act i ons about whi ch McCue

compl ai ns.

C.

We cl ose by consi der i ng one f i nal argument t hat McCue

makes. He cont ends t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed by

"compar t ment al i z[ i ng] " i t s anal ysi s of t he f our adver se act i ons,

as i f t hey were di scr ete j udgment s. I n consequence, McCue

cont ends, t he Di st r i ct Cour t mi st akenl y exami ned onl y whet her

Br adst r eet ' s r et al i at or y i nt ent subst ant i al l y caused or mot i vat ed

each act i on on i t s own, such t hat each was i t sel f t aken i n

vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st Amendment . I nst ead, McCue ar gues, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t shoul d have consi der ed t he f our act i ons as an

i nt er r el at ed whol e.

Mor e speci f i cal l y, McCue ar gues t hat t he deci si on i n

ear l y May 2006 t o change t he DOA' s enf orcement pol i cy agai nst McCue

st ar t ed a "chai n of causat i on" t hat l ed di r ect l y t o t he l at er

adver se act i ons i n J une, November , and December such t hat t hey,

t oo, coul d each be deemed an adver se r et al i at ory act i on t aken i n


37/40

- 37 -

vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st Amendment . But McCue i s l ess t han cl ear i n

expl ai ni ng t he nat ur e of t hat casual chai n.

To t he ext ent McCue means t o ar gue t hat Br adst r eet ' s

r et al i at ory pur pose at t he out set of hi s t enur e must have been

communi cat ed t o other DOA of f i ci al s - - and t hus was i n t hat way a

subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or i n t he subsequent , post - r ecusal

r egul at or y deci si ons - - McCue i s wr ong. As we have j ust expl ai ned,

unl i ke i n Tr aver s, t he r ecor d her e si mpl y i s devoi d of any suppor t

f or such a specul at i ve i nf er ence about what di r ect i ons t o

under l i ngs must have been gi ven wi t hi n t he DOA ei t her bef ore or

af t er May 2006.

And t o t he ext ent t hat McCue means t o i dent i f y some ot her

chai n of causat i on f r om t he f i r st act i on t o t he l ast , he does not

spel l out what t hat l i nkage mi ght be. For exampl e, he does not

i dent i f y anythi ng i n t he r ecor d t o suggest t hat any deci si on by

t he DOA i n May of 2006 to al l ow t he DEP t o t ake enf orcement act i ons

agai nst McCue woul d have sent t he si gnal t hat was t he subst ant i al

or mot i vat i ng f act or wi t hi n t he DOA t o t ake t he subsequent act i ons

agai nst McCue.

To t he ext ent t he r ecor d does suppl y evi dence of t he

basi s f or t he DOA havi ng taken those ot her act i ons, mor eover , such

evi dence r el at es onl y t o McCue' s own pr i or pr act i ces on hi s f ar m

- - and concer ns about t hei r egr egi ous nat ur e - - as wel l as t o t he

pr essure t o do somet hi ng about t hem f r om ot her agenci es and


38/40

- 38 -

concer ned ci t i zens. The r ecor d t hus pr ovi des no basi s f or

concl udi ng t hat DOA of f i ci al s act ed out of a f el t need t o get i n

l i ne wi t h a pr i or deci si on by t he DOA t hat concerned what t he DEP

woul d be permi t t ed t o do. Nor does t he r ecor d cont ai n evi dence

i ndi cat i ng t hat t he subsequent deci si ons somehow depended on t he

f i r st one, such t hat t hey, t oo, woul d vi ol at e McCue' s Fi r st

Amendment r i ght s. Thus, we ar e l ef t wi t h a r ecor d t hat shows t hat

t her e was one di scr et e respect - - and onl y one - - i n whi ch a

r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat r et al i at i on was t he subst ant i al or

mot i vat i ng f act or f or an adver se r egul at or y act i on by t he DOA.

Ther e r emai ns t he whol l y separ at e i ssue of whet her any

damages f l owed f r omt he one adver se act i on t hat we concl ude a j ur y

r easonabl y coul d f i nd had been t aken i n vi ol at i on of McCue' s Fi r st

Amendment r i ght s - - namel y, t he May 2006 deci si on. I t i s by no

means cl ear t hat any damages di d f ol l ow f r om t hi s May 2006

deci si on. McCue di d, af t er al l , have a r ecor d of gener at i ng

subst ant i al concer ns about hi s r egul at or y noncompl i ance. And t he

r ecor d shows t he DOA t ook a number of subsequent r egul atory act i ons

agai nst McCue and t hat t hese act i ons wer e t aken wi t hout r et al i at or y

i nt ent bei ng a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or f or t hem.

But we do not at t empt t o resol ve t he damages i ssue here.

The Di st r i ct Cour t had no occasi on t o under t ake t he causal i nqui r y

t hat woul d per t ai n t o the det ermi nat i on whether any damages mi ght

be at t r i but abl e t o a DOA deci si on i n May 2006 to hand McCue over


39/40

- 39 -

t o t he DEP. Rat her , t he Di st r i ct Cour t concl uded - - er r oneousl y,

i n our vi ew - - t hat even absent McCue' s pr ot ect ed conduct , a j ur y

woul d be r equi r ed t o f i nd t hat t he DOA woul d have made the same

deci si on i t made i n May 2006 r egardi ng DEP enf orcement even i f

McCue had not engaged i n pr otected conduct . And Br adst r eet , f or

hi s par t , cont ends onl y t hat r et al i at or y i nt ent was not t he

subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or f or any of t he f our adver se

act i ons about whi ch McCue compl ai ns or , al t er nat i vel y, t hat t he

DOA woul d have t aken al l f our of t hose act i ons even i f McCue had

never appeal ed t he subsi dy. Br adst r eet t hus makes no argument

t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment on t he al t er nat i ve gr ound

t hat no har m f l owed f r om t he f i r st adver se act i on McCue pur por t s

t o i dent i f y, even assumi ng t hat Br adst r eet ' s r et al i at i on was a

subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or i n t he DOA t aki ng i t . We t hus

l eave i t t o t he par t i es on r emand t o cont est - - and t he Di st r i ct

Cour t t o resol ve - - whether any damages mi ght be due i f a j ur y

wer e t o f i nd t hat t he May 2006 deci si on r egar di ng t he DEP vi ol at ed

t he Fi r st Amendment , not wi t hst andi ng that t he recor d shows t hat

none of t he ot her act i ons about whi ch McCue compl ai ns di d.

I V.

We af f i r m t he Di str i ct Cour t ' s concl usi on t hat

Br adst r eet i s ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment wi t h r espect t o t hr ee

of t he f our r egul at or y act i ons about whi ch McCue compl ai ns i n hi s

Fi r st Amendment sui t . But we al so hol d t hat a r easonabl e t r i er of


40/40

f act coul d concl ude t hat Br adst r eet ' s r et al i at i on f or McCue' s USDA

appeal was a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or i n t he DOA' s al l eged

deci si on i n May 2006 t o al l ow t he DEP to exer ci se i t s r egul at or y

power over McCue. And we f ur t her hol d t hat Br adst r eet has not

shown t hat a r easonabl e t r i er of f act woul d be compel l ed t o

concl ude t hat deci si on woul d have been made even i f McCue had never

appeal ed t he USDA subsi dy Br adst r eet i ni t i al l y r ecei ved. As a

r esul t , we reverse t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s grant of summar y j udgment

i n par t and remand f or f ur t her proceedi ngs. We awar d no cost s

under Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 39( a) ( 4) .

McCue v. Bradstreet, III, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents