# Coszalter v. City of Salem

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 18, 2003 · 320 F.3d 968

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8407635

## Case

- **Full name:** Guido COSZALTER Gary Jones Steve Johnson v. CITY OF SALEM, a municipal corporation Sam Kidd, individually and in his capacity as supervisory employee for the City of Salem Randy Pecor, individually and in his capacity as supervisory employee for the City of Salem Mark Scheer, individually and in his capacity as supervisor for the City of Salem Steve Coots, individually and in his capacity as an employee of the City of Salem Rollie Baxter, individually and in his capacity as an employee of the City of Salem
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 18, 2003
- **Citations:** 320 F.3d 968; 2003 WL 350313
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ferguson
- **Judges:** Ferguson, Fletcher, King
- **Cited by:** 392 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8407635

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that Nunez does not create “an exclusive, category-based limitation on the kind of retaliatory action that is actionable under the First Amendment,” nor does it mean that “the government is allowed to take severe retalia tory actions ... because those actions do not re…
- finding that plaintiff may satisfy the “substantial factor” standard in numerous ways, 7 either by timing or through statements by the employer showing its disapproval of the 8 protected activity or by showing that the employer’s proffered reasons for the adverse 9 action were…
- finding that plaintiff may satisfy the “substantial factor” standard in numerous ways, either by timing or. through statements by the employer showing its disapproval of the protected activity or by showing that the employer’s proffered reasons for the adverse action were pret…
- holding that it is error to consider the length of time in isolation and that three to eight month interval "can support an inference of retaliation” when “surrounding circumstances,” such as inconsistent application of a policy, suggest that the employer had a retaliatory motive
- holding that “severe retaliatory actions” including “campaigns of harassment and humiliation” could support a § 1983 claim for First Amendment retaliation

## Opinion text

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Fletcher’s opinion. I write separately to stress that government officials cannot discriminate in any manner, no matter how trivial the First Amendment expression may seem to be.
In Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 , 76-77 n. 8, 110 S.Ct. 2729 , 111 L.Ed.2d 52 (1990), the Supreme Court stated, “the First Amendment ... protects state employees not only from patronage dismissals but also from ‘even an act of retaliation as trivial as failing to hold a birthday party for a public employee ... when intended to punish her for exercising her free speech rights.’ ” (quoting the lower court opinion at 868 F.2d 943 , 954 n. 4 (7th Cir.1989)). In other words, no government official can trivialize the First Amendment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8407635. Public record. Not legal advice.