January 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 30

LAW REVIEW
and 2 had both effectively alleged
Sullivan had " deprived Watkins of
his same right to patronize the park
in retaliation for Watkins's exercising
his First Amendment right to
free speech. "
Failed Appeals
Process Claim
The district court also had dismissed
Count 3 of the complaint
because Watkins had failed to
identify a constitutionally inadequate
appeals process to review
his trespass warning. In his inadequate
appeals process claim, the
district court found Watkins had
simply alleged " Sullivan never
informed Watkins about the process
for challenging the trespass
warning, " which " did not render
inadequate the underlying process
itself. " Accordingly, the district
court held Watkins had " failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that
Sullivan, a 'park-level employee,'
had authority to promulgate and
enact procedures or ordinances
for challenging the trespass warning. "
Watkins had claimed Sullivan
was a park supervisor, but
Sullivan had stated she was employed
as a park ranger.
The federal appeals court
In the opinion of the appeals
court, " Watkins neither pointed
to a constitutionally inadequate
process nor alleged facts
sufficient to demonstrate that
Sullivan had the requisite final
policymaking authority to
trigger municipal liability " under
Section 1983.
30 Parks & Recreation |
J ANUAR Y 2 0 2 3
agreed with the district court. In
the opinion of the appeals court,
" Watkins neither pointed to a
constitutionally inadequate process
nor alleged facts sufficient
to demonstrate that Sullivan had
the requisite final policymaking
authority to trigger municipal liability "
under Section 1983.
Section 1983 Qualified
Immunity
As described by the federal appeals
court: " Qualified immunity
offers complete protection
for government officials sued in
their individual capacities if their
conduct does not violate clearly
established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable
person would have known. "
As characterized by the court:
" The doctrine of qualified immunity,
when applied properly,
protects all but the plainly incompetent
or those who knowingly violate
the law. " Moreover, to avoid
summary
judgment
under
the
doctrine of qualified immunity,
the court noted the plaintiff had
to show the following:
[T]he government official violated
a federal right and that, given
the circumstances, the right was
already clearly established when
the official acted.
In addition, to establish a Section
1983 claim for retaliation under the
First Amendment, the federal appeals
court noted the plaintiff had
the burden to establish the following
three points:
(1) [H]e engaged in constitutionally
protected speech; (2) he suffered
adverse conduct that would
likely deter a person of ordinary
firmness from engaging in such
speech; and (3) a causal connec|
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
tion between his protected speech
and the adverse conduct.
Causal Relationship
In this particular instance, the appeals
court assumed Watkins had
sufficiently alleged the
first two
requirements for his First Amendment
retaliation claim; i.e.:
Watkins's singing
constituted
protected speech and...the
complained-of-trespass warning
was a sufficiently adverse act.
Accordingly, the sole issue before
the appeals court was " whether a
sufficient causal relationship existed
between the trespass warning
and Watkins's singing. "
As described by the federal appeals
court, a sufficient causal relationship
would not exist where
the
facts
alleged
in
plaintiff's
complaint " show mixed motives
(lawful
and unlawful motivations)
and pre-existing law does
not dictate that the merits of the
case must be decided in plaintiff's
favor. " Given such mixed lawful
and unlawful motivations, a defendant
would, therefore, be entitled
to qualified immunity and
summary judgment.
Accordingly, when " a person
is singing a song with lyrics offensive
to other people, " it might
qualify as protected speech under
the First Amendment. Such
behavior, however, would " not
shield the singer from the otherwise
valid consequences of the
singer's separate acts, " in particular,
unlaw acts " performed while
he was singing. "
Lawful Trespass Warning
In this particular instance, the federal
appeals court found: " Watkins
has presented evidence that Sul
January 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of January 2023 - Parks & Recreation
