Cristo v. Evangelidis
90 Mass. App. Ct. 585
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Jude Cristo was HR director and payroll director for the Worcester County sheriff's office from 1999 (promoted 2006) and raised internal complaints in 2010 about coworkers (Bove, Dickhaut) campaigning on work time, poor attendance, payroll irregularities, and missing county property.
- Cristo reported these issues to his supervisors (acting sheriff Shawn Jenkins and deputy superintendent Paul Legendre) while performing his job duties; he prepared a written report but did not publicize complaints outside the office.
- After Lewis Evangelidis was elected sheriff (November 2010) and inaugurated (January 5, 2011), Cristo was terminated effective January 7, 2011; Christus sought internal appeals and sought records and retirement/pay entitlements afterward.
- Cristo sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation (count three); other state-law claims were dismissed or withdrawn.
- Evangelidis moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity; the trial judge denied the motion and Cristo appealed. The Appeals Court vacated the denial and remanded with instructions to allow summary judgment for Evangelidis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cristo's workplace complaints were protected First Amendment speech | Cristo contends his complaints addressed matters of public concern (misuse of public time, unlawful conduct) and thus were protected | Evangelidis argues Cristo spoke pursuant to his official duties (HR/payroll) and therefore was not speaking as a citizen under Garcetti | Held: Cristo spoke pursuant to job duties (not as citizen); Garcetti bars First Amendment claim |
| Whether Cristo's speech outweighed employer's interest in efficient public service | Cristo argues public-concern balancing favors protection | Evangelidis contends employer interest in supervising/evaluating employees outweighs any employee interest when speech is job-related | Held: Court did not reach Pickering balancing because speech was within official duties (Garcetti) |
| Whether qualified immunity shields Evangelidis from damages | Cristo argues he was deprived of clearly established rights | Evangelidis argues no constitutional violation occurred and thus immunity applies | Held: Qualified immunity applies because no First Amendment violation (speech was job-related) |
| Causation between speech and termination | Cristo points to timing and inauguration incident to infer retaliatory motive | Evangelidis (and Jenkins) say they were unaware of Cristo's complaints when firing him | Held: Court declined to resolve factual causation dispute after deciding speech was not protected; causation unnecessary to outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (when public employees speak pursuant to official duties they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (public-employee speech balancing test for matters of public concern)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (distinguishing private grievance from matters of public concern in First Amendment analysis)
- Lane v. Franks, 574 U.S. 438 (clarifying that speech made pursuant to ordinary job duties is not protected)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Decotiis v. Whittemore, 635 F.3d 22 (First Circuit articulation of retaliation elements)