Robert Pyke v. Arcadis US Inc. ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 11 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT PYKE, No. 14-15835
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01279-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ARCADIS US, INC., a Colorado
corporation; LARRY ROTH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 14, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Robert Pyke appeals from the district court’s summary judgment
in favor of Appellees ARCADIS US, Inc. (Arcadis) and Larry Roth. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the district court’s summary
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
judgment de novo. Ah Quin v. Cty. of Kauai Dept. of Transp., 733 F.3d 267, 270
(9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
Pyke contends that Arcadis unlawfully retaliated against him for First
Amendment protected speech. He argues that two of his communications merit
constitutional protection. First, he points to an email he sent to his Arcadis
supervisors and Terry Macaulay, a director of the California state-government
agency that engaged Arcadis to perform consulting work on a water-management
project. In that email, Pyke voiced his disagreement with the agency’s decision to
exclude two people from participating on the Arcadis team. Second, he circulated
to his superiors and the agency two memoranda pointing out perceived flaws with
the agency’s approach to the project.
Neither of Pyke’s communications merit First Amendment protection.
Pyke’s email expressing his desire to have the two excluded individuals on his
team is unprotected because he was acting pursuant to his “official duties” in
recommending those individuals. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006).
His memoranda are likewise unprotected because they were “routine report[s]”
dealing with the water-management project on which the agency hired Arcadis as a
consultant. Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060, 1075 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
2
We hold that Pyke’s communications are unprotected by the First
Amendment and, accordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment in
favor of Appellees.
AFFIRMED.
3