finding that dismissal of plaintiffs § 1985(1) claims against certain defendants was appropriate pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), because, inter alia, defendants had “agreed to engage in constitutionally protected speech”
How later courts described this case
- finding that dismissal of plaintiffs § 1985(1) claims against certain defendants was appropriate pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), because, inter alia, defendants had “agreed to engage in constitutionally protected speech”
- stating that the Privacy Act applies to only federal agencies
- holding that Privacy Act claims cannot be brought against state or local agencies
- finding no property right where the employer maintained unconditional power to remove an employee from his position
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GEORGE CLIFTON EDWARDS, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in Judge Contie’s opinion for the court. I write separately only to note that I would accept the First Amendment reasoning of the majority in Stern v. United States Gypsum, Inc., 547 F.2d 1329, 1342-43 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 975 , 98 S.Ct. 533 , 54 L.Ed.2d 467 (1977), as alternative ground for support of the conclusion set forth in Section V. of Judge Contie’s opinion.