Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jane Anthony v. Bruce Sundlun, Etc, 1st Cir. (1992)
Jane Anthony v. Bruce Sundlun, Etc, 1st Cir. (1992)
_________________________
No. 91-1712
JANE ANTHONY, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
BRUCE G. SUNDLUN, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellants.
_________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, U.S. District Judge]
_________________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_________________________
Casby Harrison, III, Associate Executive Counsel, Office of
the Governor, for appellants Sundlun and Cruise.
Richard B. Woolley, Assistant Attorney General, State of Rhode
Island, for remaining appellants.
Arthur M. Read, II, with whom Gorham & Gorham, Inc. was on
brief for appellees.
_________________________
_________________________
SELYA, Circuit Judge
adamant in their refusal to recognize that discriminatory animus
can be proven circumstantially as well as by direct evidence,
appeal from an order suspending the operation of termination
notices addressed to the plaintiffs, seven seasonal state
employees. We affirm.
The circumstances of the case can be succinctly
summarized.
1. In November 1990, Rhode Island's incumbent governor,
a Republican, was defeated at the polls. His successor, Bruce
Sundlun, is a Democrat. Governor Sundlun took office on January 1,
1991.
2. Because parimutuel wagering is permitted at the
privately-owned jai alai fronton in Newport, Rhode Island, pursuant
to a state license, state employees are assigned to work there.
The fronton is open on a seasonal basis. The 1991 jai alai season
began on May 2, 1991.
3. Toward the end of April, 1991, the state hired ten
persons, including the seven plaintiffs, to fill various nonpolicymaking positions (e.g., parimutuel monitors, auditors, etc.)
based at the fronton. All seven plaintiffs had worked there
without incident during the previous season. All were Republicans.
4. On April 26, the governor's chief of staff, R. David
Cruise (himself a Democratic state senator), demanded that the
hiring agency (the Division of Racing and Athletics of the state's
Department of Business Regulation) furnish him a roster of
positions at the fronton. The list was delivered the same day. It
enumerated thirteen positions and contained an explicit statement
that: "All but three (3) of the positions listed above are
currently filled." The three vacant positions were specified.
5. Senator Cruise, who testified that he read the list
but not the explanatory statement, immediately consulted a
Democratic general officer and a prominent Democratic state
representative concerning potential appointees. On May 1, 1991,
the chief of staff transmitted thirteen names to the hiring agency,
denominating the job that each person was to perform at the
fronton. The plaintiffs' positions were encompassed. Twelve of
the newcomers were Democrats. The thirteenth, registered as an
"unaffiliated" voter, was Cruise's close personal friend.
6. The plaintiffs were cashiered the next day, just as
the jai alai season opened.
On these, and other, facts, the district court concluded
that, apart from political spoils, it would be "difficult if not
impossible to find any other rational explanation [for the
firings]."
Applying the familiar four-part test for ascertaining
whether a preliminary injunction should be granted, see, e.g.,
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert, 934 F.2d 4, 5 (1st Cir.
1991), the court determined that interim relief was warranted.
It thereupon issued a restraining order which had the effect,
pending a trial on the merits, of reinstating the sacked plaintiffs
to the jobs that had been snatched away from them so
unceremoniously. This appeal followed.
We linger little over the appellants' importunings. The