FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH September 10, 2008
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
ROXANNE MOFFITT PIGNANELLI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 07-1251
PUEBLO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
60, DR. JOYCE F. BALES,
individually and in her capacity as
Superintendent of Pueblo School
District No. 60, and KATHLEEN
KENNEDY, individually and in her
capacity as President of Pueblo School
District No. 60’s Board of Education,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. NO. 1:05-CV-01682-RPM-CBS)
James A. Carleo, Pueblo, Colorado, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
Elliot J. Scott (Sonja S. McKenzie with him on the brief), Senter Goldfarb &
Rice, L.L.C., Denver, Colorado, for the Defendants-Appellees.
Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges, and FRIZZELL, District
Judge. *
*
Honorable Gregory K. Frizzell, United States District Court, Northern
District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
Roxanne Moffitt Pignanelli ran for the Pueblo School District Board of
Education in 2003 but lost the election. A middle school drama teacher at the
time, she blamed her employer, Pueblo School District No. 60, for her loss, and
sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of her constitutional rights.
Pignanelli claimed the school district and its representatives, including the
superintendent of schools, violated the First Amendment, Equal Protection
Clause, and Due Process Clause by causing her to lose the school board election
and then failing to renew her one-year teaching contract.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on
all claims, and Pignanelli appealed. We agree with the district court that the
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Exercising jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, we therefore AFFIRM.
I. Factual Background
Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff-Appellant Pignanelli, see
Clanton v. Cooper, 129 F.3d 1147, 1153 (10th Cir. 1997), the facts as alleged
establish the following.
The school district hired Pignanelli in August 2002, to serve as a middle
school drama teacher under a one-year contract. District Deputy Superintendent
John Musso negotiated with Pignanelli for her salary and benefits package, and
-2-
ultimately placed Pignanelli into a higher pay grade than her educational
qualifications and teaching experience supported at the time. Despite this
discrepancy, the contract was approved by the school board and Pignanelli began
her tenure as a part-time teacher in the district. In August 2003, Pignanelli was
rehired, again under a one-year contract, to continue in the same position.
A week after her rehiring, Pignanelli announced her candidacy for the
upcoming school board election. One of the issues that developed in the
campaign was whether District Superintendent Joyce Bales should be removed.
Pignanelli was perceived by some, including Bales, as a Bales-opponent—and
someone who would vote for Bales’s removal. Because of this perception, Bales
sought to discredit Pignanelli’s candidacy and cause her to lose the election.
Bales did this by combing through Pignanelli’s personnel file, and then initiating
a school board review of her salary and qualifications. On September 23, 2003, at
a confidential executive session of the board, Pignanelli’s salary was reduced to
the level her experience and education supported.
Soon after the executive session, The Pueblo Chieftain, a local newspaper,
reported Pignanelli’s salary reduction. One of the reporters for the Chieftain
made a request under Colorado’s Open Records Act for Pignanelli’s personnel
records, which were duly handed over by the board. These records were then
made public through publication in the Chieftain. At the same time, both
Pignanelli and Superintendent Bales were interviewed by the newspaper for
-3-
additional, related stories. The controversy over Pignanelli’s salary and her
concomitant candidacy for the school board fed into several stories in the local
media up through the election day in November 2003. At the election, the voters
chose not to elect Pignanelli.
Despite her election defeat, Pignanelli maintained her position as a part-
time teacher through the end of the 2003–2004 school year. At the end of the
year, Pignanelli’s part-time drama spot was changed to a full-time language arts,
speech, and drama position. Pignanelli was not qualified for this new position,
and was not hired for it. As she had been working under a one-year contract, the
district had no contractual obligation to rehire her.
Based on her failure to obtain office and the loss of her part-time teaching
position, Pignanelli determined her constitutional rights had been violated. She
therefore brought suit under § 1983 against the school district, Superintendent
Bales, and the president of the school board. The district court granted summary
judgment to all three Defendants.
II. Discussion
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
Seegmiller v. LaVerkin City, 528 F.3d 762, 766 (10th Cir. 2008). Summary
judgment should only be granted where, taking the facts in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P.
-4-
56(c). Although the burden is on the moving party, the non-movant “may not rest
on its pleadings,” but rather must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial as to those dispositive matters for which it carries the
burden of proof.” Applied Genetics Int’l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912
F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990).
Pignanelli appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor
of Defendants on all the claims she raised in the district court. Interpreting her
briefing as best we can, Pignanelli alleges she can overcome the summary
judgment hurdle on her claims alleging (1) violations of due process, (2) First
Amendment employment retaliation, and (3) violations of equal protection. We
conclude Pignanelli has waived review of her due process claim by failing to cite
any legal authority for the claim in her appellate brief, waived review of her First
Amendment retaliation claim by failing to argue it in the district court, and cannot
obtain relief on her equal protection claim because it fails on the merits.
A. Due Process
Pignanelli has waived appellate review of any due process claim she may
have alleged against the Defendants in the district court. Although Pignanelli
asks us to reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, she
must do more than simply request reversal for us to consider the merits of her
claim. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a); Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904, 913 n.6 (10th
Cir. 2007) (“An issue or argument insufficiently raised in the opening brief is
-5-
deemed waived.”). Rule 28(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
requires the appellant to set forth “appellant’s contentions and reasons for them,
with citations to the authorities and part of the record on which the appellant
relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Because Pignanelli has not directed us to
any legal authority or record evidence supporting a claim for relief under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, her appeal on this ground must
fail.
B. First Amendment Employment Retaliation
As with her due process claim, we will not consider the merits of
Pignanelli’s First Amendment employment retaliation claim. Pignanelli argues
for the first time on appeal that she meets the four-step analysis, set forth in Dill
v. City of Edmond, for public employees asserting a claim of retaliation for
exercising their First Amendment rights. See Dill v. City of Edmond, 155 F.3d
1193, 1201–03 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983);
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968)). Under Dill, if the public
employee’s speech involves a matter of public concern, we must balance his or
her interest in commenting on such matters against the interest of the government
employer in an effective, non-disruptive work environment. Id.
By failing to argue Dill in the district court, however, Pignanelli has
waived review of the issue in this court. We do not review claims on appeal that
were not presented below. Wolfe v. Barnhart, 446 F.3d 1096, 1103 (10th Cir.
-6-
2006); Rosewood Servs., Inc. v. Sunflower Diversified Servs., Inc., 413 F.3d 1163,
1167 (10th Cir. 2005). Pignanelli failed to allege the requirements for a First
Amendment employment retaliation claim in her district court complaint,
summary judgment briefing in the district court, or at the hearing held by the
district court. In fact, as Pignanelli made clear in her summary judgment
briefing, the basis of her First Amendment challenge was her election loss—not
employment retaliation. See Supp. App. at 35 (Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 1) (“This is a
First Amendment case about the Defendants’ hijacking a school board election.”);
id. at 66 (Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 32) (“Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim revolves
around her status as a candidate running for the D-60 board of education. Her
claim is that the Defendants disclosed confidential information about her to the
media, sabotaging and destroying her candidacy.”).
Because Pignanelli failed to argue her First Amendment employment
retaliation claim below, the district court did not have an opportunity to address
the claim and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.
C. Equal Protection
Finally, Pignanelli—essentially repackaging a First Amendment speech
right claim—argues two distinct harms were inflicted upon her in violation of the
Equal Protection Clause. She complains of (1) her loss in the school board
election in November 2003, and (2) her loss of salary and position as a teacher at
Pueblo School District No. 60 after the 2003–2004 school year. Both harms, she
-7-
asserts, result from the Defendants’ “intentional or purposeful discrimination . . .
design[ed] to favor one individual or class over another.” Aplt. Br. 30. To put it
another way, Pignanelli asserts the Defendants violated the Equal Protection
Clause by treating her differently than similarly situated individuals (presumably
other district employees) during her run for elected office and in her position as a
teacher in the district.
After carefully considering the applicable law, we reject both of the
separate, but overlapping grounds Pignanelli says support her equal protection
cause of action. First, the three cases she cites in the context of her election loss
are so factually distinguishable as to provide no support for a cause of action tied
to the loss. Second, clear Supreme Court precedent precludes a public employee
from making out an equal protection claim on the sole basis that she was treated
differently by her employer.
1. Election Loss
Pignanelli alleges the Defendants violated the Constitution because they
“engaged in an effort to defeat her.” Aplt. Br. 29. She complains that
Superintendent Bales leaked information to The Pueblo Chieftain in a manner that
“suggested an improper, if not salacious, relationship” between her and Deputy
Superintendent Musser and “destroyed Ms. Pignanelli’s candidacy.” Aplt. Br. 20,
-8-
8. 1 Because of Bales’s opposition to her candidacy, Pignanelli argues, she did not
have a fair chance of winning the election.
A review of the three election cases Pignanelli cites reveals the obvious
deficiency in her claim. In fact, the cases she relies upon—Snowden v. Hughes,
321 U.S. 1 (1944); Smith v. Cherry, 489 F.2d 1098 (7th Cir. 1973) (per curiam);
Shakman v. Democrat Org. of Cook County, 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir. 1970)—are
not even in the same factual universe. While each of those cases dealt with
election irregularities perpetrated by state election officials, here we have a case
dealing only with public school officials opposing Pignanelli’s candidacy.
In Snowden v. Hughes, for example, the facts painted a picture of violations
of state election law by the officials charged with administering it. There,
petitioner alleged “members of the [Illinois] State Primary Canvassing Board,
acting as such but in violation of state law, have . . . deprived petitioner of
nomination and election as representative in the state assembly.” 321 U.S. at 5.
The petitioner argued the defendants, “by failing to certify petitioner as a duly
elected nominee, ha[d] denied to him a right conferred by state law and ha[d]
thereby denied to him the equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment.” Id. at 8. The case was about access to the ballot, the right to a
1
Despite her characterization of Defendants’ conduct, Pignanelli did not
bring state law claims of libel, defamation, or invasion of privacy against them.
-9-
meaningful vote, and the legitimacy of an election that was administered by state
election officials in violation of state law.
The Seventh Circuit cases relied upon by Pignanelli were also based upon
alleged misdeeds by state officials that called into question the legitimacy of an
election. See Smith, 489 F.2d at 1102–03 (reversing grant of motion to dismiss
where an alleged conspiracy by Illinois Democratic committeemen to run a sham
candidate “debased the rights of all voters in the election”); Shakman, 435 F.2d at
268 (reversing grant of motion to dismiss where city and county officials
allegedly “require[d] city and county employees, as a condition of holding their
jobs . . . , to furnish votes, campaign work, and money to elect candidates chosen
by the regular democratic organization”).
The factual differences between the election cases cited by Pignanelli and
her own case are vast—and illustrate the weakness of her legal theory. First, the
school district Defendants were not election officials in control of an election;
they were public school employees. The Defendants had no control over who got
on the ballot or who received votes in the election. Second, Pignanelli was not
prevented from actually running for office or receiving votes in an election. She
persevered during the campaign, remaining on the ballot and receiving some share
of the votes at the polls. Third, Pignanelli makes no allegation of election
irregularities or illegalities. The school board election, by all accounts, was fairly
-10-
run, and voters had a real choice between real candidates. Cf. Smith, 489 F.2d at
1103 (reversing motion to dismiss because of a “sham candidacy”).
Finally, any injury suffered by Pignanelli resulted from the voters not
electing her rather than the Defendants’ alleged misdeeds in trying to defeat her.
The school district voters—not the Defendants—directly caused Pignanelli’s
election loss. Cf. Habecker v. Estes Park, 518 F.3d 1217, 1224 (10th Cir. 2008)
(concluding plaintiff-appellant Habecker lacked standing to sue public officials in
Estes Park because he “cannot show the existence of a case or controversy. His
loss of elected office, although an injury in fact, was the result of an intervening
cause—the electorate—and is not fairly traceable to the defendants.”).
Pignanelli argues for the adoption of a rule that would subject public
employees to liability whenever they speak in favor of or against a candidate for
office. But this rule has no basis in the Equal Protection Clause; and further, runs
directly contrary to the intent of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Connick, 461
U.S. at 145 (“The First Amendment was fashioned to assure unfettered
interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired
by the people.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Constitution cannot be
used to completely muzzle public employees during elections, nor to entirely
protect them, when they become candidates, from the rough-and-tumble of the
political arena. See generally Ivan E. Bodensteiner and Rosalie Berger Levinson,
-11-
1 State and Local Gov’t Civ. Rights Liab. § 1:10 (Apr. 2008) (collecting cases).
After all, “[p]olitics ain’t bean bag.” 2
Finally, it is worth noting all the information disclosed by the Defendants
to The Pueblo Chieftain was public information. The only documents disclosed
were Pignanelli’s resume, job application, and a memorandum written by Musso
calculating her salary. At oral argument, Pignanelli conceded that under Colorado
law the school board was required to disclose these documents upon request. See
Colorado Open Records Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-201, et seq. (2003). Board
members were similarly free to give the newspaper certain information stemming
from their executive session. Although Colorado law says the record of executive
sessions is not open to public inspection, it goes no further than that. See Colo.
Rev. Stat. § 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(I)(D) (2003). In short, Pignanelli has failed to show
the Defendants acted in contravention of any state law when they released certain
information to the Chieftain. Any alleged leak of sensitive information to the
newspaper therefore provides no basis for her equal protection claim.
2. Job Loss
Separate and apart from her claim based on her loss of the election,
Pignanelli also complains of her loss of employment with the school district.
Given the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Engquist v. Oregon Department of
Agriculture, however, her claim based on a “class-of-one” equal protection theory
2
A colloquialism coined by Finley Peter Dunne.
-12-
must fail. See Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agric., __ U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2146
(2008). First, just like the plaintiff in Engquist, Pignanelli sought to bring an
equal protection claim against a public employer based on allegations the
employer treated her differently than others similarly situated. As the Court made
clear in Engquist, this is not a legally cognizable cause of action. Second,
Pignanelli has failed to rebut the Defendants’ evidentiary showing that she was
not qualified for the new position.
In Engquist, an Oregon state employee brought an equal protection claim
against the state after she was laid off, alleging she lost her job because of
“arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons” directed only at her. 128 S. Ct. at
2149. The plaintiff did not get along with one of her co-workers and repeatedly
complained about the co-worker to her supervisor. Id. Based on instructions
given by the district court, a jury found the plaintiff had been intentionally treated
“differently than others similarly situated with respect to the denial of her
promotion, termination of her employment, or denial of bumping rights without
any rational basis . . . .” Id. Although the jury rejected the plaintiff’s equal
protection claims based on race, sex, and national origin, the jury awarded
damages on her class-of-one claim.
The court of appeals reversed in relevant part, holding the class-of-one
theory of equal protection did not apply in the public employment arena. The
court reasoned that allowing such suits to proceed would “completely invalidate
-13-
the practice of public at-will employment.” Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agric.,
478 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoted in Engquist, 128 S. Ct. at 2150). The
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. It too rejected the
plaintiff’s claim, unequivocally holding that the class-of-one equal protection
theory, whatever its contours, “does not apply in the public employment context.”
Engquist, 128 S. Ct. at 2151. A public employee-turned-plaintiff must be a
member of an identifiable class to bring an equal protection claim. Id.
The Supreme Court has long recognized “a crucial difference, with respect
to constitutional analysis, between the government exercising ‘the power to
regulate or license, as lawmaker,’ and the government acting ‘as proprietor, to
manage [its] internal operation.’” Id. at 2151 (quoting Cafeteria & Restaurant
Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 896 (1961)). The Court has repeatedly sought
to reaffirm the common-sense notion “government offices could not function if
every employment decision became a constitutional matter.” Id. (quotation
omitted). Therefore, the Court has held “the government as employer . . . has far
broader powers than does the government as sovereign.” Id. (quotation omitted);
see also Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983) (“[A]bsent the most unusual
circumstances, a federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the
wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to
the employee’s behavior.”).
-14-
The Equal Protection Clause is concerned with governmental classifications
that “affect some groups of citizens differently than others,” especially those in
“an identifiable group.” Engquist, 128 S. Ct. at 2152 (quotations omitted). “To
treat employees differently is not to classify them in a way that raises equal
protection concerns. Rather, it is simply to exercise the broad discretion that
typically characterizes the employer-employee relationship.” Id. at 2155.
Following the clear commands of Engquist, it is obvious the equal
protection theory Pignanelli relies on to challenge the non-renewal of her
employment contract must fail. The board’s decision to allow her contract to
lapse rather than rehire her into a position for which she was unqualified does not
raise constitutional concerns. Even if the “unequal treatment was not rationally
related to a legitimate government purpose,” the board’s decision—acting in its
role as proprietor and employer—does not constitute a violation of equal
protection. See id. at 2157. In fact, the Supreme Court has “never found the
Equal Protection Clause implicated in the specific circumstance where, as here,
government employers are alleged to have made an individualized, subjective
personnel decision in a seemingly arbitrary or irrational manner.” Id. at 2155; see
also id. at 2156 (noting “recognition of a class-of-one theory of equal protection
in the public employment context . . . is simply contrary to the concept of at-will
employment”). In accordance with the Supreme Court’s precedent, we must
reject Pignanelli’s theory of unequal treatment.
-15-
It is true, as Pignanelli points out, one of our previous decisions has already
analyzed the class-of-one equal protection theory in the public employment
context. See Bartell v. Aurora Pub. Schs., 263 F.3d 1143, 1148–49 (10th Cir.
2001). 3 In Bartell, a public school teacher facing accusations of sexual
harassment sued the school district after being placed on administrative leave.
263 F.3d at 1145–46. The teacher brought an equal protection claim alleging he
was the victim of “selective, purposeful discrimination by government officials
who harbor animosity towards [him].” Id. at 1148. We framed the legal issue as
“not whether [plaintiff’s] equal protection theory is well established, but simply
whether it is a viable legal theory.” Id. We concluded the plaintiff’s class-of-one
equal protection theory based on governmental animosity was viable. Id. at
1148–49.
To the extent Bartell conflicts with Engquist, it no longer represents the
law. In Engquist, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split involving the scope
of the class-of-one theory—and Bartell was on the losing side. See Engquist, 478
3
Tenth Circuit cases have dealt with the class-of-one equal protection
theory in other contexts, as well. See, e.g., Bruner v. Baker, 506 F.3d 1021, 1029
(10th Cir. 2007) (tax commission investigations); Mimics, Inc. v. Vill. of Angel
Fire, 394 F.3d 836, 848 (10th Cir. 2005) (building inspections); Jennings v. City
of Stillwater, 383 F.3d 1199, 1210 (10th Cir. 2004) (law enforcement). Given the
nature of these class-of-one claims, we must always proceed with great caution.
See Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Rio Arriba County, 440 F.3d 1202, 1209 (10th Cir.
2006) (noting this and other circuits “have proceeded cautiously in applying the
[class-of-one] theory, sensitive to Justice Breyer’s warning against turning even
quotidian exercises of government discretion into constitutional causes”).
-16-
F.3d at 993 (9th Cir.) (recognizing split and disagreeing with Bartell and other
circuit cases applying the class-of-one theory to public employment). “Public
employees typically have a variety of protections from just the sort of personnel
actions about which [Pignanelli] complains, but the Equal Protection Clause is not
one of them.” Engquist, 128 S. Ct. at 2157. 4 To the extent Bartell recognized a
public employee’s class-of-one equal protection theory, Bartell conflicts with
Engquist and we overrule it. 5
In laying down this rule, we join several other circuits that have already
recognized the implications of Engquist. See, e.g., Appel v. Spiridon, 531 F.3d
138, 139 (2d Cir. 2008) (“The Supreme Court recently held that the Equal
Protection Clause does not apply to a public employee asserting a violation of the
Clause based on a ‘class of one’ theory of liability.”); Wilson v. Libby, __ F.3d
__, No. 07-5257, 2008 WL 3287701, at *20 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“Under Engquist
. . . the class-of-one theory of equal protection does not apply in the public
employment context.” (citation omitted)); see also Skrutski v. Marut, Nos. 07-
2828 & 07-2848, 2008 WL 2787434, at *6 (3d Cir. July 18, 2008) (slip copy).
4
For example, based on the facts she alleges, Pignanelli may have made
out a traditional claim of First Amendment employment retaliation. See, e.g.,
Deschenie v. Bd. of Ed. of Cent. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 22, 473 F.3d 1271, 1276
(10th Cir. 2007) (analyzing four-factor test laid out in Dill).
5
The text of this opinion has been circulated to all of the active judges of
the court and there is no objection.
-17-
Finally, even assuming she could have pleaded a valid cause of action,
Pignanelli has failed to develop disputed material facts sufficient to survive
summary judgment. During the 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 school years,
Pignanelli was employed as a part-time drama teacher in one of the district’s
middle schools. Responding to changes in federal law, however, the part-time
position was eliminated and a new full-time position, covering a wider range of
subjects, was created. The Defendants presented evidence in the district court,
which Pignanelli failed to rebut, showing Pignanelli was not qualified for the new
position. Therefore, quite apart from her school board candidacy playing a role in
her not receiving the new job, she did not get the job because she was not
qualified for it. Given these undisputed facts, Pignanelli has failed to tie the loss
of her job to an equal protection violation.
***
In sum, the equal protection claims Pignanelli brought against the
Defendants based upon her election loss and her job loss cannot withstand
summary judgment.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM. 6
6
Defendants also argued they were entitled to summary judgment based on
qualified immunity. Because we conclude Defendants did not violate the
Constitution, we need not resolve this question. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S.
194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the
(continued...)
-18-
6
(...continued)
allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning
qualified immunity.”).
-19-