Vigil v. South Valley Academy - Court Order on Briefs

After exami ning t he bri efs and appe ll at e recor d, t his panel has deter mined * unani m ousl y to grant t he part ies ’ reques t for a deci si on on the br iefs w it hout or al arg u m en t. See Fed. R. Ap p. P. 34 (f); 10th C ir. R. 34.1(G). Th e case is therefo re order ed submit ted wi thout oral argument. This order and j udgment i s not bindi ng prece dent, except under t he doct rines of law of t he case, res judi cat a, and col lat eral est oppel. It may be cit ed, how ever, for i t s pers uasi ve value cons is tent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10t h Cir. R. 32. 1. FI LED Unite d State s Court o f Appeals Tenth Ci rcuit September 12, 2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED S TATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T H E T EN T H C IR C U IT SONYA VIGI L; LOR EN VIGI L, Plainti ffs-App ell ants, v. SOUT H VALL EY ACADE MY; AL A N M AR K S, i n his offici al and i ndi vi d ual ca pa ci t y; DA NIEL DO M IN GU E Z, i n his offici al and i n di v i d ua l c ap a ci t y; KATARI NA SA ND O V AL, i n her offi cial and in d iv i d u a l c a p a c it y, D efendants-App ell ees. No. 06-2309 (D.C. No. CI V-0 5- 1142 WJ/ ACT) (D. N.M.) ORDER AND J UDGM ENT * Before TAC HA, C h ie f J u dg e, MURPHY and HOLM ES, Circui t Judges. So ny a Vi gi l wo rk ed as t he off ic e man ag er for Sou t h Va ll ey Aca de my (SVA), a school locat ed in New M exico. H er husband, L oren Vigi l, served on Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 1

-2- SV A’s gover ning counci l. B oth M r. and M s. V igi l cl aim they w ere for ced from the ir job s in v io lation o f sta te an d fe de ral law, an d th ey the ref ore bro u gh t this ac tion ag ain st S V A a nd ind iv idu al d ef en da nts A lan M a rk s, K atar ina S an do v al, and Daniel D ominguez. T he dis tr ict court, however, granted SVA’s moti on for su m m ary ju d g m e n t an d th e in div id u a l d ef en d a n ts’ r eq u e st f o r q u alif ie d im m u n ity. We h av e j ur i sd i ct i on ove r t he a ppe al pu rs uan t t o 2 8 U. S. C. § 1 29 1 a nd af fi rm. I Accordi ng to t he complai nt, SV A i s organi zed as a muni cipal corporat ion. In 2001, M s. V igi l began worki ng for SVA, but compl ained af ter complet ing her fi rst y ear t hat s he had not been e valuat ed or given a r aise. She also expr essed concer n about t he school ’s s ecuri ty measures and w hat she percei ved to be t he ad m inistra tion ’s p ref ere n tial treatm e n t of certa in sta ff m e m be rs. L ater, M s. V igil lodged addi ti onal compl aint s t hat facul ty members were worki ng w it hout proper cer ti ficat ions and t hat s he had been deni ed the oppor tuni ty to enr oll in fur ther school ing as promis ed at t he ti m e of her hi re. The s chool’ s head t eacher, A lan M arks, told Ms. Vigi l t hat a budget short fall w as t o blame for her not recei ving a rai se, al though he l ater sai d it was because s he lacke d cert ifi cati on. Mr. Marks al so agreed t o hire a s ecuri ty guard, but t hen del egated t he respons ibi li ty to a jani tor who had no exper ience wit h securi ty iss ues. B y 2004, Ms. Vigi l had bee n assault ed by a st ud ent and confronted by another wielding a knife; she also lea rn e d th at a sp e cia l e d u ca tio n te ac h er w a s h ir ed d u rin g th e b u d g et d e f icit. Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 2

The dis tri ct court also gr anted s umm ary judgment on var ious contr act 1 cl aims, but t he Vigil s do not appeal that rul ing. -3- Dissat isfi ed with t he manner in which her complai nts had been handl ed, M s. V igil’s relationship w ith M r. M ark s and SV A ’s assistant head teach er, Katar ina Sandoval, det erior ated. M s. Vigi l r equest ed a leave of absence for medical reasons, but was tol d that no such opti on exis ted. R ather, Mr. Marks infor med her t hat i f she l eft, she woul d be paid unt il Februar y 15, 2004, as se v era n c e. M s. V ig il le ft d e sp ite th is w a rn in g an d n ev e r r etu rn e d to w o rk. A ltho u gh the pa rties a ttem p ted to m e d iate th e ter m s o f h er d ep artu re, those e ff orts fai led. Consequent ly, in M arch of t he same y ear, the pr esident of the gover ning counci l, D ani el Dominguez, asked Mr. Vigi l to r esi gn “due to t he potent ial legal im plica tion s th at m a y be b rou g ht b y [M s. V ig il].” A p lt. A pp. at 1 5. M r. V ig il re fu s ed to v o lu nta ri ly res ig n a n d so th e co u n cil’ s m em b ers v o ted h im ou t. The V igi ls t hen brought thei r gr ievanc e to feder al court, al legi ng num erous st ate and f ederal viol ati ons agai nst SVA and t he indi vidual defendants. After the district court dism issed sev eral of the V igils’ claims, the co urt gran ted sum m ary judgment based on qual ifi ed immunity on the Vigi ls ’ remai ning cl ai m s for freedom of as soci ati on and M s. V igi l’ s cl aims for freedom of speech, procedur al due p roc ess, and equ al protection. Th e district court’s grant of sum m ary jud gm en t ba sed o n q ua lified im m u nity is no w th e su b ject o f th is ap p ea l. 1 Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 3

-4- II A. Q ua lifi ed Im m u nity “Quali fied i mm unit y gener all y s hiel ds from l iabi li ty for ci vil damages government offici als per forming di scret ionar y functi ons i nsofar as thei r conduct does not viol at e clear ly est abli shed st at utory or const itut ional r ight s of which a reas onable per son w ould have known. ” G omes v. W ood, 451 F. 3d 1122, 1134 (1 0 th C ir.) (in te rn al q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d a lte ra tio n o m itte d), cert. deni ed, 127 S. Ct. 676 (2006). “Beca use of t he underl y ing purpos es of qual ifi ed im m un ity, we rev iew su m m ary jud gm en t ord ers d e cid ing q ua lified im m u nity quest ions differ entl y fr om other s um mary judgment deci sions.” Ward v. Anderson, – F.3d – , 2007 W L 2110901, at *3 (10t h Cir. Jul y 24, 2007) (quotat ion om it ted). W hen a defend ant rai ses qualifi ed imm unity as an affirmati ve d efense on a moti on for summary judgment, “t he plai nti ff bear s t he heavy two-par t bur den of demonst rat ing t hat (1) t he defendant viol ated a c onst it uti onal r ight and (2) the const it uti onal right w as cl earl y est abli shed at the t ime of the al leged conduct.” Reeves v. C hurchi ch, 48 4 F.3 d 1 2 44, 12 50 (1 0th C ir. 20 0 7). If a p lain tiff m ee ts this burde n, the def en dan t mu st then satisfy the usual su m m ary judgm ent stand ard of sh ow ing tha t no m ater ial f ac ts are in d isp ute a n d th at h e o r sh e is e ntitled to ju dg m en t a s a m a tte r o f law. O lse n v. L ay ton H ills M a ll, 312 F.3d 1304, 1312 (10t h Cir. 2002). W e revi ew the gr ant of s umm ary judgment bas ed on qual ifi ed Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 4

-5- immunit y de novo, “cons ider ing al l evi dence in t he li ght most favorabl e to t he non-moving par ty.” Trask v. Franco, 44 6 F.3 d 1 03 6, 1 0 4 3 (1 0th C ir. 2 0 0 6). In th is ca se, M s. V igil alle ge d th at sh e w as te rm in ated. T h e d istrict co u rt, however, found that she r esi gned. The cour t t hen rel ied on t his fi nding thr oughout i ts quali fied i m munit y anal ys is t o determi ne that no consti tut ional viol ations had occurr ed. Y et, our precedent requi red t he court to acc ept as tr ue he r a lle g atio n th a t sh e w a s term in a ted. See Lawrence v. R eed, 406 F.3d 1224, 1230 (10t h Cir. 2005) (holdi ng that qual ifi ed immunit y analy sis begins w it h the court aski ng “whether the pl aint iff’ s all egat ions, if tr ue, est abli sh a cons ti tut ional viol ation” (inter nal quotat ion marks omitt ed)). By findi ng that M s. Vigi l r esi gned and i ncorporat ing that findi ng int o it s qual ifi ed immunit y analy sis, t he di str ict court blended i ts qual ifi ed immunit y anal ys is wit h a merit s anal y si s and improper ly undercut M s. V igi l’ s cl aims. Inst ead, the cour t s hould have a ccepted as true M s. V igil’s all eg ation that sh e w as term inated and determ ined w hethe r, ba s ed o n th at o r a n y oth e r a lle ga tio n, sh e e sta b lish e d a c o n stitu tio n a l v iola tio n. T he ref ore, giv en o ur d e n o vo stan d ard of re view, an d b ec au se “[w ]e are fre e to affirm a d istri ct co urt decision on an y groun ds fo r w hich th ere is a reco rd suffi ci ent t o permit concl usions of law, ” S m ith v. P lati, 258 F. 3d 1167, 1174 (10t h Cir. 2001), we accept Ms. Vigi l’s al legat ion t hat s he was ter minat ed and pro ce e d to c o n sid e r w h eth e r th e re is a n y m eri t to th e c o n ten tio n s n o w b ef o re u s. Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 5

-6- 1. Free dom of Associ ati on The Fir st Amendment impl ici tl y prot ects the fr eedom to expr essi ve as so c iatio n. G race Unit ed M ethodi st C hurch v. C it y of Cheyenne, 451 F. 3d 643, 658 (10t h Cir. 2006). Although t here has been s ome debate as to i ts source, the rig h t to fa m ilia l a s so cia tio n a lso is co n stitu tio na lly p ro te cte d. See Truj il lo v. B d. of County C om m ’rs, 76 8 F.2 d 1 1 8 6, 1 18 8 -8 9, 1 1 90 n.7 (1 0 th C ir. 19 8 5). A plain tiff alleg in g a vio latio n o f th e rig ht to ex pre ssive ass o ciatio n m a y sup po rt h is or h er c la im b y d em o ns tra tin g, inter alia, som e f orm o f go ve rnm en t actio n to im p o se p en a ltie s f o r th e ex p re ss io n of p o litic al v ie w s, see Robert s v. U nit ed Stat es Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984), w hil e a pl aint iff c lai ming a vi olat ion of the righ t to f am ilial as so ciatio n m ust s ho w th at th e d ef en da n t had th e sp ec ific in ten t to in te rf ere w ith th e fa m ilia l r ela tio n sh ip, T ru jillo, 768 F. 2d at 1190. Here, the Vigi ls m ai ntai n that thei r ri ghts to expr essi ve and famil ial ass oc iation w e re v io lated w h en the ind ivid u al d ef en da nts p u nish e d th em f or th eir political view s an d their m arriage to o ne a nother. T hey fail to prese nt, how ev er, any speci fi c evidence to suppor t t hese al legat ions. W ith r espect to M s. Vigi l, t he recor d suppor ts nei ther her ar gument that she was fir ed for expr essing conce rns about proper fac ult y cert ifi cati on, i nequit abl e tr eatment, and s afety is sues, nor her argu m ent that she w as fired for sha ring v iew s com m o n w ith her h usb and. Rathe r, the r ecor d suggest s t hat she was fi red because s he t ook an unauthor ized l eave of absence. I ndeed, Mr. Marks warned Ms. Vigi l pr ior to her depart ure t hat she Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 6

-7- would be compensat ed “unt il Februar y 15, 2004 as sever ance pay.” Aplt. App. at 117. Thi s warni ng signal ed to M s. V igi l t hat her unaut hori zed leave of absence would res ult in t erminat ion becaus e she l ater acknowledged t hat if she wer e not pai d w hil e on medical leave, it could “onl y be t aken as a st at ement that I have been fi red. ” Id. at 128. M oreover, she speci fical ly disput ed t he impli cat ion of M r. M arks’ stat ement, ar guing t hat “[p] ay recei ved while on medi cal leave cannot be consi dered s everance pay.” I d. And despi te Ms. Vigi l’s gr owing frus tr ati on and repea ted t hreat s of res ignat ion, it was not unt il aft er she t ook an unauthor ized leave of absence that SV A refused t o all ow her back. As for M r. Vigil, the evi dence conce rning hi s removal s how s not that he was punis hed for hi s wife’ s act ions, but becaus e ther e were “obvi ous confl ict of int erest is sues i nvolved wit h the ac ti ons [she was] taki ng.” Id. a t 13 6. B oth M r. M arks an d M s. San do val w ere gov erning co uncil m em bers a nd bo th w ere enmeshed i n a dis pute t hat now names t hem as defendant s. M ediat ion had pr oven un su cc ess fu l, M s. V igil h ad thre aten e d leg a l actio n, an d the co un c il w as c au g ht in the unenvi able pos it ion of for cing Mr. Vigi l to r esi gn or al lowing hi m the choi ce to eith e r e n g ag e in or a b s tain f ro m pro ce e din g s ne c es sa rily im p lic a tin g h is w if e. Given t hese ci rcumst ances, the fa ct t hat the counci l for ced hi m to res ign does not in dic a te an in te n t to pu n is h h im fo r a n y po litic a l v ie w s he m a y ha v e ex p re ss ed. No r do es i t e vi de nc e a sp ec i fi c i n t en t t o i n t er fe re wi t h h i s ma r ri a ge. I t s ho ws on ly th a t th e c o u nc il s o ug h t to a v oid th e c on f lic t o f in te re st th a t c le arl y ex iste d. Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 7

-8- A cc o rdin gly, be cau se M r. an d M s. V igil fa il to sh o w a vio lation o f th eir rig hts to ex pre ssiv e o r f am ilial as so ciatio n, the y ca nn ot sa tisfy the first p ro ng n ec essa ry to overcome a qual ifi ed immunit y defe nse, and we therefor e need not cons ider the se co n d. See Eaton v. M enel ey, 379 F. 3d 949, 954 (10th Ci r. 2004) (“But if a plaintiff fa ils to dem onstrate that a de fe ndan t’s con du ct violated the law, the cou rt nee d no t determ ine w h ether the law w as clearly established.”). 2. Free dom of Speech Turni ng to M s. V igi l’s i ndividual clai ms, she mai ntai ns that she was term in ated in retalia tion fo r sp ea kin g o u t ag ain st ine qu itab le staf f trea tm en t, un e th ic al e m p lo ym e n t pra c tic e s, a n d in a d eq u a te se cu ri ty m ea su re s at S V A. “[T ]h e F irs t A m e nd m en t b a rs re ta lia tio n f or p ro tec te d sp e ec h.” C rawford- El v. Brit ton, 523 U.S. 574, 592 (1998). I n G arcet ti v. Ceball os, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006), t he Supreme Court recent ly alt ered t he t radi ti onal fr ee speec h ret ali ati on cl aim anal ys is set for th i n P icke ring v. B oard of Educati on, 39 1 U.S. 5 63 (1 9 6 8). See Bramm er-Hoelt er v. Twin Peaks C hart er Acad., 492 F. 3d 1192, 1202 (10t h Cir. 2007) (“it is apparent that the ‘ Pi ckeri ng ’ anal ys is of fr eedom of speec h ret ali ati on cl aims i s a fi ve st ep inqui ry w hich we now refe r t o as the ‘ Garcet ti /Picke ri ng ’ an aly sis”); see also C a se y v. W. La s V e ga s In de p. Sch. D ist., 47 3 F.3 d 1 3 23, 13 2 5 (1 0th C ir. 2 00 7) (n o ting tha t G a rce tti “prof ou ndly alt ers how courts revi ew Fir st A mendment ret ali ati on clai ms”). W e now begin by aski ng w het her t he employ ee spoke “purs uant t o [her] offi cial duti es. ” G a rce tti, Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 8

-9- 126 S. Ct. at 1960. Publ ic empl oy ees who speak purs uant t o thei r offici al dut ies are af fo rde d “no co n stitutio na l pro tec tion be ca use th e re striction o n sp e ec h sim p ly refl ects t he exer cis e of employ er contr ol over what t he employ er i ts elf has commissi oned or cr eat ed.” Brammer-Hoelt er, 492 F.3d at 1202 (i nter nal quotat ion marks omi tt ed). N ext, i f the empl oy ee has not spoken purs uant t o her offi cial duti es, but rat her as a ci tizen, w e must det ermine whether the s peech rel at es to a mat ter of publ ic concer n. See G reen v. B d. of County Com m ’rs, 472 F.3d 794, 798 (10th Cir. 2007). Speech t hat i s of no publi c concern i s not prot ect ed and the i nquiry ends. However, once i t i s deter m ined t hat the employ ee has s poken as a ci tizen on a matt er of publ ic conc ern, w e ask “whet her t he em p loyee ’s inter est in co m m e ntin g o n the issu e o utw eig hs th e in tere st o f th e sta te as empl oyer.” Casey, 473 F.3d at 1327 (i nter nal quot ation mar ks omit ted). I f the employ ee’s i nter est is great er t han that of the employ er, she must then show that th e s p ee c h w a s a m o tiv atin g f a cto r b e h in d the a d ve rs e em plo ym e n t d ec is ion. Belcher v. Ci ty of M cAlest er, 324 F. 3d 1203, 1207 (10th Cir. 2003) (quot ati on omit ted). Fi nall y, i f an employ ee makes thi s showing, t he employ er may demonstr ate by a preponder ance of the evi dence that its act ion would have been th e s am e to w a rd th e e m p lo yee e ve n w ith ou t th e p ro te cte d sp e e ch. Id. In th is c a se, M s. V ig il’s cla im do e s n o t s urv iv e b e yon d th e f irs t tw o ste p s. W it h res pect t o w hether she spoke pur suant to her offici al dut ies, al though M s. V igi l i nsi sts that it was not her “j ob responsi bili ty ” to r eport w rongdoi ng, Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 9

-10- A p lt. B r. a t 3 5, “ [a]n em plo ye e’s o f fic ia l jo b d e sc rip tio n is no t d is p os itiv e,” Bramm er-Hoelt er, 492 F. 3d at 1203. Rat her, “[t] he ult imat e quest ion i s whether the empl oy ee speaks as a ci ti zen or. .. i n his or her profess ional capaci ty.” I d. (i nter nal quot ati on m arks omitt ed). A nd on thi s scor e, Ms. Vigi l’ s complai nts of fa lsely rep orte d stu d en t statistics clea rly w ere m ad e in he r p rof ess ion al ca p ac ity as o ff ic e m an a g er b ec a us e sh e w a s th e o n e c h arg e d w ith filin g th e se re p o rts. A s f or th e re m ain de r o f h er sp e ec h, it do es n o t relate to m atters of pu b lic concer n. Ms. Vigi l’ s complai nts that the admi nis trat ion favor ed cert ain s taff members, fail ed t o evaluat e her per formance and i ncreas e her s alar y, and hi red a new teacher during t he b udget deficit are not matters of pub lic concern because they are “i nternal in scope a nd personal in nat ure. ” Id. at 1206 (int ernal quotat ion m ark s o m itted). Fu rth er, ev en if h er sta tem en ts ab o ut th e sc ho o l’s ina de qu a te sec urity m ea su res w ere su ff icien tly related to m atters of pu b lic co nc ern, the re is absolutel y no evidence that she w as fired for voicing t his concern. Thus, M s. V igi l fai ls t o advance a vi able fr ee speech r etal iati on clai m, and t he in d iv i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s a re e n ti tl e d t o q u a li f ie d i m m u n it y. 3. Proced ural Du e Process Next, M s. Vigi l as sert s that she was deni ed due proces s becaus e she was ter minat ed without noti ce. “Pr ocedural due proces s ensur es t hat a s tat e w il l not de priv e a pe rso n of life, lib erty or p rop erty un les s fa ir pro c ed ure s a re u sed in making t hat deci sion. ” K irk lan d v. S t. Vra in V alley S ch. D ist., 464 F.3d 1182, Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 10

-11- 1189 (10t h Cir. 2006) (quotat ion omi tt ed). In deci ding whet her a pl aint iff was deni ed procedur al due pr ocess, we ask fi rst, w hether she poss essed a pr otect ed int erest to which due pr ocess prot ecti on was appli cabl e; and s econd, whet her she w a s a f fo rd e d a n a p p ro p ria te le v e l o f p ro c e ss. Id. In M s. V igil’s c ase, sh e w a s e m plo yed u nd er a b ind ing co n tract u n til June 30, 2004, and t herefor e had a prot ect ed proper ty inter est in cont inued em p loym e n t u n til th at d a te. See Dil l v. C it y of Edmond, 155 F. 3d 1193, 1206 (10t h Cir. 1998) (“Prot ected pr opert y int eres ts ari se, not fr om the Const it ution, but fr om stat e stat utes, r egulat ions, cit y or dinances, and expr ess or i mpli ed cont ract s. ”). H er cont ract, how ever, expres sly provi ded that it could “be ter minat ed by the School for caus e, incl uding .. . insubor dinat ion .. . phys ical or mental inabil it y t o perform the required duti es or for any other good and just ca u se. . . .” A p lt. A p p. a t 6 6. M s. Vigil argues t hat she took a leave of absence for m edical reas on s, notwithstanding M r. M arks’ w arning that no such form of leave existed. Thus, under t he expr ess t erms of her contr act, her inabi li ty to per form the dut ies requi red of he r and t he fact that she t ook leave w it hout aut horizat ion provi ded the sch o ol w ith just c au se to ter m ina te h er c on trac t. M o re ov er, th e f ac t that M s. V igil negot iat ed the ci rcumstance s of her depart ure dur ing mediat ion cl earl y est abli shes that she rece ived adequat e due proces s. Consequent ly, we concl ude that M s. V ig il’s claim is w itho u t m erit. Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 11

-12- 4. Equal Prot ecti on M s. V ig il also c o nten d s th at sh e w as tre ated d iff ere ntly fro m sim ilarly si tuat ed employ ees becaus e she was not all owed to at tend fur ther school ing, re ce iv e pa y ra ise s, ta k e m e dic a l le av e, o r a rriv e late to w o rk w ith o u t re p rim an d. Quoting our deci sion i n M imics, Inc. v. Vil lage of An gel Fire, 394 F.3d 836, 849 (10t h Cir. 2005), she as sert s that thi s di sparat e treat m ent consti tuted a “ campaign of offi cial harass m ent dir ected aga inst her out of s heer mal ice. ” A plt. Br. at 46 (alteration om itted). “The Equal Pr otect ion Claus e of t he Fourt eenth Amendment comm ands t hat no Stat e shall ‘deny to any person wit hin i ts j uri sdict ion the equa l pr otect ion of the l aw s, ’ which i s ess enti all y a dir ect ion t hat al l per sons s imil arly sit uat ed shoul d be tr eated al ike. ” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (ci ti ng Plyl er v. D oe, 457 U.S. 20 2, 21 6 (1 9 82)). A lth ou g h M s. V igil does not clai m to be a member of a pr otect ed clas s, she may bri ng an equal prot ect ion cl aim as a “c las s of one” by provi ng that she was “s ingl ed out for pe rse cu tion du e to so m e a nim o sity . . . wh olly un relate d to a ny legitim a te state act ivi ty.” Mimics, Inc., 3 9 4 F.3 d at 8 4 8 -4 9 (q u o tatio n s an d c itatio n o m itte d). M s. V igi l’ s cl aim is wholly w it hout mer it. I nit ial ly, we thi nk her co m pa riso n to M imics, I nc. i s i ll -concei ved. In t hat cas e, we found t hat t he plain tiff s w e re se lec tive ly targe ted an d tre ated d iff ere ntly fro m oth ers s im ilarly situ a te d d u e to th eir alig n m e n t w ith an o p p os in g po litic a l f ac tio n. Id. a t 8 49. Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 12

-13- That concl usion was based on s peci fic evi dence that the def endant bui lding in sp e cto r tw ic e en te re d the p la in tif fs ’ p la ce o f b u s ine s s w ith o ut a u th o riz atio n. Id. at 843-44, 847 n.5. Here, by cont rast, Ms. Vigi l offe rs no evi dence t o suggest that she was si ngled out for i ll egi ti m at e reas ons. I nst ead, we not e that the i ndividual defendant s have l egi ti m at e int eres ts i n regulat ing facul ty development, t he use of m ed ica l leav e, an d the pro v ision o f sa lary inc rea ses. T h ey also h av e a leg itima te inter est in en su ring tha t the ir staf f is p u nc tua l. Fu rthe r, altho u gh M s. V ig il ass ert s that unlike ot her employ ees, she was not al lowed to have summers off, pu rsu e a dd ition al sc h oo ling, rec eiv e p ay raise s, tak e m e dica l lea ve, or a rrive late to work wit hout penal ty, s he fai ls t o demonstr ate t hat she was s imil arl y si tuat ed to th ese oth er e m p loyees. “ S im ilarly situated e m plo yees a re th o se w ho d eal w ith the s ame supervi sor and ar e subj ect t o the s ame standar ds governi ng perfor m ance eval uati on and dis cipl ine. ” Aram buru v. Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398, 1404 (10t h Cir. 1997) (quotat ion omi tt ed). M s. Vigi l l ikens her sel f to ot her s taff m em b ers b y virtu e o f th e f ac t tha t they all an sw ere d to M r. M ark s, b ut sh e f ails to dem o nstrate that they were sub ject to the sam e p erfo rman ce and disciplinary stan da rd s. T he ref ore, be ca use M s. V ig il ha s no t sh ow n that sh e w a s sim ilarly si tuat ed and cannot show that she was si ngled out for il legi timat e reas ons, her equal protect ion claim fail s. Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 13

-14- B. Su mmar y Ju dg me nt For SVA Final ly, we consi der whether li abil it y may be imposed on SVA, which, as an ent it y defendant, i s not eli gibl e for qual ifi ed immunit y. W e revi ew the gr ant of summary judgment de novo, appl yi ng the s ame legal standar d as t he dis tri ct co u rt. H oll ander v. Sandoz Pharms. Corp., 2 89 F.3 d 1 1 93, 1 2 1 4 (1 0th C ir. 2 0 0 2). W e ha v e p rev iou sly held tha t m u nicip al liab ility may no t b e im p ose d on an en tity defendant where i ndivi dual defe ndants are found t o have commit ted no co n stitu tio na l v io la tio n. See Butler v. Ci ty of Prair ie Vil lage, 172 F.3d 736, 747 (10th C ir. 199 9) (“B ec ause o ur co nclus ion that the in dividu al defe nd ants are ent it led t o quali fied i m munit y rest s on t he deter minat ion t hat none of t hem viol ated Plai nti ff’s cons ti tut ional right s, the Cit y may not be found t o have violated h is rights.”); Wil son v. M eeks, 98 F.3d 1247, 1255 (10th Cir. 1996) (quot ati on om it ted) (“A munici pali ty m ay not be hel d li able where t here was no und erlying constitutional violation by any of its officers.”). O ur co nclusion here that the individu al de fen dan ts com m itted no co nstitutional violation there fo re pre clu de s a fin din g o f liab ility aga inst S V A. A c co rdin gly, SV A w a s e ntitled to su m m ary jud gm en t. Th e j ud gme nt of th e d i s t r i c t co ur t i s AF FI RMED. En tered fo r the C o urt Jer ome A. Holmes Circui t Judge Appellate Case: 06-2309 Document: 010130834 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 14