Todd Candelaria v. City of Tolleson
16-16346
| 9th Cir. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Todd Candelaria and Jeff Hamm, Tolleson firefighters and union members, were disciplined by the City after statements excluding a non-union member from post-fire relief efforts and during union advocacy for a meet-and-confer policy.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment retaliation for speech/association) and Arizona A.R.S. § 23-1411(A) (state-law retaliation), alleging discipline was retaliatory for union-related speech/association.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City; plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit applies the five-step Eng v. Cooley framework for public-employee retaliation; this case focused on the first (public concern) and third (causal/motivating factor) Eng factors.
- Court held plaintiffs’ statements excluding the non-union member were not matters of public concern (individual personnel dispute, not public safety or mismanagement) and therefore not protected.
- Even assuming some meet-and-confer activity touched on public concern, plaintiffs failed to show the activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the disciplinary action (no temporal proximity, weak evidence of City opposition, and City’s investigation was tied to the exclusionary statements).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ statements about excluding a non-union member addressed a matter of public concern | Statements were part of union-related activity and therefore on public issues | Statements were personal/departmental personnel dispute, not public concern | Not a matter of public concern; no First Amendment protection |
| Whether plaintiffs’ meet-and-confer advocacy constituted protected public-concern speech | Longstanding union advocacy for meet-and-confer was public concern | City argued form/context made it unprotected and unrelated to discipline | District court found form/context unprotected; Ninth Circuit assumed arguendo but decided on causation ground |
| Whether plaintiffs showed causation (protected activity was a substantial/motivating factor in discipline) | Temporal proximity and City hostility support inference of retaliation; City’s proffered reasons were pretextual | Discipline followed investigation triggered by exclusionary statements; meet-and-confer efforts were long-standing and not proximate; City opposed exclusionary conduct | No sufficient evidence of causation; plaintiffs failed the third Eng factor |
| Whether state-law retaliation claim under A.R.S. § 23-1411(A) survives despite federal claim failing | State statute protects union association; independent cause of action | Arizona courts apply similar analysis as First Amendment retaliation tests; same evidentiary failure | State-law claim fails for same reason as federal claim (no substantial/motivating factor) |
Key Cases Cited
- Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) (five-factor test for public-employee First Amendment retaliation)
- Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2013) (all Eng factors are necessary; failure of any is fatal)
- Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, 710 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Desrochers v. City of San Bernardino, 572 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing private personnel disputes from matters of public concern)
- Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1999) (speech about public safety and budgetary impacts is public concern)
- Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2003) (evidence that speech was a substantial or motivating factor: temporal proximity, employer opposition, or pretext)
- Hudson v. Craven, 403 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 2005) (hybrid speech/association claims evaluated together)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing public-employee speech interests against government employer interests)