25 F. Supp. 3d 521
M.D. Penn.2014Background
- Bartley, ESPN 1050 general manager/reporter, sued Taylor, Lock Haven Univ. athletic director, alleging First Amendment retaliation and related state-law claims.
- Alleged retaliation included blocking ESPN broadcasts, filing a frivolous suit against Bartley, contacting ESPN officials, directing staff not to communicate with Bartley, and other conduct affecting broadcasting opportunities.
- Prior ruling: Judge Kane dismissed state-law claims due to sovereign immunity; Count I remained; case readjusted to the undersigned after discovery.
- Court granted summary judgment for Taylor, holding no adverse impact on Bartley’s First Amendment rights as a matter of law.
- Key issue framing: whether Taylor’s actions produced a chilling effect on Bartley’s protected speech; whether Noerr-Pennington and related doctrines immunize the challenged actions; whether Bartley can state a retaliation claim as a private contractor/bidder.
- Conclusion: Final judgment for Taylor; case dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor’s conduct violated §1983 retaliation. | Bartley asserts her actions chilled First Amendment rights. | No adverse impact; actions were not retaliatory. | No adverse impact; judgment for Taylor. |
| Whether Bartley can state retaliation as a bidder for a new contract. | Bartley as bidder claims retaliation for speech. | Umbehr limits such claims absent preexisting relationship. | Barred; not actionable as a matter of law. |
| Whether Taylor’s Noerr-Pennington defense immunizes her petitioning conduct. | Noerr immunity does not apply to false or baseless litigation. | Clinton County suit immunized; not sham; Noerr applies. | Not a sham; Noerr immunity applies. |
| Whether Taylor’s communication to ESPN staff and others constitutes retaliation. | Alleged to silence Bartley. | Speech-related actions by public official not actionable without coercion/threats. | Not actionable retaliation. |
| Whether Taylor’s alleged Right-to-Know Act circumvention constitutes retaliation. | Directed notes instead of emails to avoid disclosure. | De minimis impact; no chilling effect. | Not actionable retaliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Balt. Sun Co. v. Ehrlich, 437 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 2006) (adverse impact measured objectively; not every government restraint chills speech)
- Suarez Corp. Indus. v. McGraw, 202 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2000) (retaliation claims require adverse impact to First Amendment rights)
- Wicomico County v. Ehrlich, 999 F.2d 780 (4th Cir. 1993) (retaliation requires chill to exercise of rights; objective standard)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) (speech rights; government can't punish protected speech)
- Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) (preexisting relationship required for certain retaliation claims by private contractors)
- Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. v. Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (Noerr immunity for petitioning; sham exception objective-based)
- Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492 (1988) (two-tier sham definition; objective then subjective analysis)
- Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (objective baselessness required for sham petitioning inquiry)
- Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U.S. 365 (1991) (sham petitioning analysis; focus on use of government process)