Curtis Herman v. Steven Harman , 583 F. App'x 33 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 14-1013
    ___________
    CURTIS M. HERMAN;
    AUSTIN JAMES ASSOCIATES, INC.,
    Appellants,
    v.
    STEVEN J. HARMAN;
    UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INDEMNIFICATION BOARD MEMBERS;
    KERRY L. YOUNDT; ICF INCORPORATED, LLC;
    MICHAEL F. CONSEDINE; E. CHRISTOPHER ABRUZZO;
    W. MICHAEL SMITH; E. BRUCE SHELLER; J. STEPHEN HIEBER;
    LARRY T. MORTON; NANCY MARICONDI; STEPHANIE C. WISSMAN
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-13-cv-01118)
    District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
    ____________________________________
    Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    October 31, 2014
    Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, GREENAWAY, JR. and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
    (Filed: November 19, 2014)
    OPINION*
    *
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
    does not constitute binding precedent.
    KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.
    During the period relevant to this appeal, Curtis M. Herman and Austin James
    Associates, Inc. (collectively “Appellants”) were government contractors who evaluated
    claims, provided litigation support, developed strategy on major projects, and provided
    expert opinions on technical and budgetary questions for Pennsylvania’s Underground
    Storage Tank Indemnification Fund (the “Tank Fund”), a state agency that provides
    payments to owners of underground storage tanks to remediate releases of hazardous
    substances.1 Appellants challenge the dismissal of their First Amendment retaliation
    claim, which stems from the non-renewal of their contract by the Tank Fund. We affirm
    because the speech at issue did not address a matter of public concern and thus was not
    constitutionally protected.2
    The controversy here emanates from gasoline leaks at a station run by Leroy and
    Mary Musser. In September 2003, the Mussers contracted with Appellants to remediate
    the site of a 1997 fuel leak. Later that month, the Mussers and the Tank Fund reached a
    final settlement and release agreement that included a $1.208 million payment to fund
    1
    Appellants were technically subcontractors hired by ICF, Inc., the Tank Fund’s
    third party administrator responsible for investigating all Tank Fund claims. The Tank
    Fund authorized ICF, Inc. to hire firms like Appellants’ to investigate claims and provide
    technical services. The contractor/subcontractor distinction, however, is not pertinent to
    our analysis. For ease of reference, we refer to Appellants as “government contractors”
    who contracted directly with the Tank Fund.
    2
    We have jurisdiction to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C § 1291. Our review of a
    district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss is plenary. Spruill v. Gillis, 
    372 F.3d 218
    , 226 (3d Cir. 2004). Because we write for the parties, we recite only those facts
    necessary to our conclusion.
    2
    remediation; the Mussers distributed this payment to Appellants. Eight years later, the
    Mussers filed another claim with the Tank Fund, ostensibly for a 1999 leak at their
    station, with an estimated additional remediation cost of approximately $1 million. The
    Tank Fund denied the new claim, finding that it was included in the 2003 release. The
    Mussers appealed.
    While the Mussers technically filed the claim and appeal, Appellants actually
    funded and prosecuted them after determining that fully remediating the Mussers’ site
    was going to be significantly more expensive than provided for in their 2003 contract.
    Appellants pursued the claim despite a conflict-of-interest provision in their contract with
    the Tank Fund, which prohibited Appellants from “representation of a client in regard to
    a claim against [the Tank Fund] on a release.”3 As a result, the Tank Fund did not renew
    Appellants’ contract.
    “In order to plead a retaliation claim under the First Amendment, a plaintiff must
    allege: (1) constitutionally protected conduct, (2) retaliatory action sufficient to deter a
    person of ordinary firmness from exercising his constitutional rights, and (3) a causal link
    between the constitutionally protected conduct and the retaliatory action.”4 This
    protection shields government contractors from adverse employment actions that result
    3
    App. 182a.
    4
    Thomas v. Independence Twp., 
    463 F.3d 285
    , 296 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Mitchell
    v. Horn, 
    318 F.3d 523
    , 530 (3d Cir. 2003)).
    3
    from speech on matters of public concern.5 We use a three-part test to determine whether
    speech by government contractors is constitutionally protected: (1) whether they were
    speaking as citizens rather than as public contractors discharging their contractual duties;
    (2) whether their speech “address[ed] a matter of public concern as opposed to a personal
    interest;” and (3) whether the state had “an adequate justification for treating [them]
    differently from any other member of the general public as a result of” their speech.6
    Appellants fail the second and third parts of our test. Speech is of public concern
    when it is “fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern
    to the community.”7 While there is, of course, a public interest in the ability of
    businesses to apply to and then appeal the decision of a state agency without
    repercussion, it is of no public concern that a contractor of that agency—whom the
    agency relies upon for litigation support and other expertise—funds and prosecutes a
    million-dollar claim against the agency on behalf of its private client. Here, the Mussers
    could have pursued their claim without Appellants prosecuting it for them, and
    5
    Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, Wabaunsee Cnty., Kan. v. Umbehr, 
    518 U.S. 668
    , 674-75,
    684-85 (1996).
    6
    Montone v. City of Jersey City, 
    709 F.3d 181
    , 193 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal
    quotation marks omitted).
    7
    Connick v. Myers, 
    461 U.S. 138
    , 146, 148 (1983) (no matter of public concern
    against District Attorney when employee’s complaints “did not seek to inform the public
    that the District Attorney’s office was not discharging its governmental responsibilities”
    and did not “seek to bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust
    on the part of [the District Attorney] and others”); Gorum v. Sessoms, 
    561 F.3d 179
    , 187
    (3d Cir. 2009) (“[Appellant’s] assistance . . . did not involve a matter of public concern.
    Instead, his ‘speech’ during [a] disciplinary hearing related to the personal grievance of
    one student.”).
    4
    Appellants pleaded nothing that suggests that their speech exposed the Tank Fund as
    being run contrary to the public interest. Moreover, the Tank Fund, a state agency that
    provides seven-figure claim payments and relies on expert opinions to make decisions
    about those claims, had ample justification for treating Appellants differently than
    members of the public by hewing to a strong conflict-of-interest policy.8
    In sum, we conclude that while Appellants’ speech “manage[d] to brush ever so
    gently against a matter of public concern,”9 it was the private contractual concern of a
    business, which violated a sensible conflict-of-interest policy. Accordingly, the District
    Court properly dismissed the First Amendment claim.
    8
    See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 
    547 U.S. 410
    , 419 (2006) (state employers may restrict
    speech if such restriction allows them “to operate efficiently and effectively”); see also
    Piscottano v. Murphy, 
    511 F.3d 247
    , 277 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that avoiding actual or
    perceived conflict of interest constitutes legitimate governmental interest).
    9
    Miller v. Clinton Cnty., 
    544 F.3d 542
    , 551 (3d Cir. 2008).
    5