WPC ! >DiW/#Cyf4L wBJGFLqS ri&qDbN,gA(rH7iF36Ӡ DBK>R/TFE^[JBITPO&xq{cf+QLBdeVC̔>.U]u!:"5$Z)ڬir}+DKp l1MY]/lKX٢S{Bf>^2/stU@TLnS|,_ xֵ^j iWG.qsF+ qRi[`b$RZc9tJtx Hgmx&m݉>!-a5uq]‡62#UN} % 0: 0D UBOUFU8 1u 72^ w4 mE f a 0c y} N b   - 8M 0~" 1&&& 1J B==========ZHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,(#$  0  <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular<4 9Z+ Courier New 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)gz2s 6x2:i+003|xUTABLE A(;3$2#  0  .3  0   o_  =XXdd=  XXXX3Wehaveobservedthatthejobdescriptionisthebest,and  sometimesdispositive,sourceforidentifyingthefunctionsofthe  position.See_Duriex_Ԅ_Gauthier_,274F.3dat8;_Roldan_Ԅ_Plumey_v. \ _Cerezo_ԄSuarez,115F.3d58,6465(1stCir.1997). - -   _XXXX  =XXdd=  5Hadfieldalsoarguesthatsummaryjudgmentshouldhavebeen  deniedbecauseaMassachusettsSupremeJudicialCourtdecision  holdsthatthepositionofclassificationandtreatmentdirector \ withinthePlymouthCountySheriff'sDepartmentwasnota 2 policymakingpositionbecausethepositionretainedcivilservice X protectionunderMassachusettslaw.SeeSheriffofPlymouthCounty . v.PlymouthCountyPersonnelBd.,802N.E.2d71,76(Mass.2004).   _Hadfield_Ԁcontendsthatbecausethe"director"classificationis   higherthanhis"assistantdeputysheriff"classification,his `  positionalsocannotbedeemedaspolicymaking.Therearetwo 6   flawsinthisargument.Neitherthe_SJC_Ԁdecisionnor_Hadfield_Ԁhas  \  providedinformationconcerningthedutieswhichtheclassification  2  andtreatmentdirectorperforms.Withoutadescriptionofthe   position'sduties,wecannotdiscernwhetheritinvolvesthekind   offunctionswhichwehaveconcludedqualifies_Hadfield_'sposition d  asoneforwhichpoliticalaffiliationisanappropriate :  requirement.SeeFlynn,140F.3dat44(explainingthatinthe `  _Branti_analysis"dutiesprevailovertitles").Moreover,the_SJC_'s 6 analysisequatedthedefinitionofpolicymakingwiththeposition's   civilservicestatusunderMassachusettslaw.Butthestatelaw  classificationofapositionisnotdeterminativeinthe_Branti_ h  analysis.See,e.g.,_Jimenez_ԀFuentes,807F.2dat246. ##Xd#    _  =XXdd=  XXXX1Thedefendantsdeniedthat,infact,theydismissed_Hadfield_  becauseofhispoliticalviewsbutassumedthatthisisa  _trialworthy_Ԁissueforpurposesoftheirsummaryjudgmentargument.(.(3($ !USUS.,      0   _  =XXdd=  XXXX2Theseprincipleshaveledtorulingsdismissingpolitical  dischargecaseswhenbroughtbymidtoupperlevelemployees  includingaregionaldirectorofanadministrativeagency,the \ municipalsecretaryinamayor'soffice,anofficerinchargeof 2 humanresources,adirectorofpublicrelations,asuperintendent X ofpublicworks,andadirectorofacity'sofficeoffederal . programs.SeeFlynn,140F.3dat45.Theyhavealsoyielded   rulingspermittingclaimstoproceedbylowerlevelemployees   includingacleaningsupervisorandacareeradministrativeaide. `  Seeid. _  XXXX4Ofcourseanemployeewhomerelyimplementspolicyisnot  therebyconvertedintooneforwhompoliticalaffiliationisa  reasonablerequirement.0CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. e (CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. _=XXdd=  XXXX6Hadfieldcitestocasesfromothercourtswhichhavetaken  anarrowerviewof"randomandunauthorizedconduct,"see,e.g.,  Honeyv._Distelrath_,195F.3d531,53334(9thCir.1999),but \ acknowledgesthatwehaveadoptedabroaderviewdescribedabove. d _  =XXdd=  XXXX7Whetheranemployeeisentitledtoahearingunder  Massachusettslawisamatterofstatutoryconstruction,not  administrativediscretion.SeeHogarthv.SheriffofSuffolk \ County,564N.E.2d397,39899(Mass.App.Ct.1990). !USUS.,  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !'$XX     fbUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#XX'$#]XX  FortheFirstCircuit M]#XXMH#  A') ` dE< ` A   No.042020   @<< RUSSELLJ._HADFIELD_, K  @ Plaintiff,Appellant,  G  @JOSEPHM._PALOMBO_;KEVINDALTON;GEORGEB._MADSEN_,JR.,   @XX%Plaintiffs, O  @tt)v. K  @JOSEPHMcDONOUGH,inhisindividualandofficialcapacity  @DDasSheriffofPlymouthCounty;@@MATTHEWHANLEY,inhis } @individualandofficialcapacity@@  asSpecialSheriff S @ofPlymouthCounty;@@ CHARLESLINCOLN,inhisindividual )y @dd andofficialcapacities;COLEMANMcDONOUGH,inhisindividual O @TT andofficialcapacities;@@JOHNP._REARDON_,inhisofficial@@TT  % capacityasCommissioneroftheCountyofPlymouth;  @ ROBERTJ.STONE,inhisofficialcapacityasCountyCommissioner  @ oftheCountyofPlymouth;@@PETERG._ASIAF_,JR.,inhisofficial@@TT  W capacityas@ CommissioneroftheCountyofPlymouth; -} @ JOHNF._McLELLAN_,inhisofficialcapacityastheTreasurer S @ oftheCountyofPlymouth, ) @Defendants,Appellees.  A') ` dE<0 ` A 1   @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT !f" @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS "$ @44[Hon.GeorgeA.O'Toole,Jr.,U.S.DistrictJudge] n$& A') ` dE<&` A &j!( @'Before &O"*   @@((Lynch,CircuitJudge, (#, Campbell,SeniorCircuitJudge, W*%. andHoward,CircuitJudge. ,S'0  -(2?L fb 8XXdd8   A') ` dE<` A        RossD.GinsbergwithwhomRichardD._Vetstein_andGilman,  McLaughlin&_Hanrahan_,_LLP_wereonbriefforappellant. k   KevinF._Moloney_withwhomRogerT_Manwaring_,Barron& A _Stadfeld_,P.C.,ThomasM._Hoopes_andKelly,Libby&_Hoopes_,P.C. g wereonbriefforappelleeJosephF.McDonough. = =Xdd=  KennethH.AndersonwithwhomThomas_Drechsler_and_Finneran_,   Byrne&_Drechsler_,_L.L.P._wereonbriefforappelleesMatthew   Hanley,CharlesLincolnandColemanMcDonough. o   *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   k  k  SI   @@38482@@SMay11,2005 U   RHC+{ " @@38482 @@ R(   (  * !      #XXXX#XXXX  ",US ,  (:!&),-,X` X5%X-=XXdXd=Ӏ `    8XXdXXd8@ OY#O ` HOWARD,CircuitJudge .InNovember2000,Joseph  McDonoughdefeatedincumbentCharles_Decas_Ԁfortheofficeof x PlymouthCountySheriff.Shortlyafterassumingoffice,McDonough $t firedRussellJ._Hadfield_ԀfromhispositionasAssistantDeputy   SuperintendentinFieldServicesforTraining("ADSforTraining"). |  _Hadfield_Ԁbroughtthisfederalactionclaimingthatthetermination ( x  violatedhisconstitutionalrights.HeallegedthattheSheriff $  andthreeofhisassociates,ColemanMcDonough,MatthewHanley,and   CharlesLincoln,unlawfullyfiredhimonaccountofhissupportfor ,|  _Decas_Ԁinthe2000election.HealsoallegedthattheSheriffand ( thePlymouthCountyCommissionersillegallydeniedhimahearing  concerninghisterminationinviolationofhisdueprocessrights. 0 Thedistrictcourtawardedalldefendantssummaryjudgment.We , affirm.    I. 4    ` Wepresentthefactsinthelightmostfavorableto L _Hadfield_.SeeO'Neillv.Baker,210F.3d41,44(1stCir.2000).   ThePlymouthCountyMassachusettsSheriff'sDepartmenthasthree T!" primaryresponsibilities.ItoperatesthePlymouthCounty #P$ CorrectionalCenter,providessupporttolocalpoliceandfire $& departments,andoverseestheserviceofcivilprocessandother X&!( legaldocuments.TheDepartmentisheadedbyapopularlyelected (T#*  Sheriffandemploysover500people. )%,  ` _Hadfield_ԀworkedfortheDepartmentinvariouscapacities   from1983untilhistermination.InMay2000,_Hadfield_Ԁwasmade \ ADSforTraining,apositioninwhichhewassupervisedbythe X Department'sDirectorofTraining.Amonghisduties,_Hadfield_   supervisedinstructors,developedresources,arrangedclasses, `  researchedcurricula,andtaughtvariouscourses.  \   ` IntheperiodbeforetheNovember2000election,_Hadfield_   workedfor_Decas_'reelection.Tohelpintheeffort,_Hadfield_Ԁheld d  _Decas_Ԁsignsatvariousrallies.OnNovember4,2000,onhiswayto `  a_Decas_Ԁrally,_Hadfield_Ԁpassedarallyatwhichhenoticedmany   peopleholdingsignssupportingMcDonough._Hadfield_Ԁattendedthis h rallywhileholdinga_Decas_Ԁsign.Attherally,_Hadfield_Ԁwas d approachedbytwoofMcDonough'ssupporters,CharlesLincolnand  ColemanMcDonough.Aftertelling_Hadfield_Ԁthatheshouldnotbe l attendingtherally,ColemanMcDonoughtold_Hadfield_,"Badmove, h _Bubba_,badcareermove."Inasimilarlythreateningvein,Lincoln  told_Hadfield_,"Youweren'tevenonthelist.Nowyou'reatthe p  topofthelist." !l"  ` AfterMcDonoughtookofficeinDecember2000,he "$ initiatedaDepartmentreorganization.Aspartofthisprocess,he t$& andhisstaffinterviewedseniorholdoversfromtheprior  &p!( administration,includingtheAssistantDeputySuperintendents. '#*  _Hadfield_'sinterviewtookplaceinFebruary2001.Soonthereafter, x)$, _Hadfield_ԀreceivedaletterfromMcDonoughinforminghimthathewas  immediatelydischargedfromhispostasADSforTraining. \   ` McDonoughdidnotprovide_Hadfield_Ԁwithnoticeora X hearingbeforetakingthisaction.Afterreceivingthetermination   letter,_Hadfield_ԀsentawrittenhearingrequesttothePlymouth `  CountyBoardofCommissioners,whichservesasthecountypersonnel  \  board.TheCommissionersdenied_Hadfield_'srequest._Hadfield_Ԁdid   notappealthisdecisiontotheMassachusettsstatecourts. d   ` Instead,inApril2001,_Hadfield_Ԁfiledthis42U.S.C. `  1983actionclaimingpoliticaldiscriminationinviolationofthe   FirstAmendmentandthedenialofproceduraldueprocessin h violationoftheFourteenthAmendment.Afteraperiodfor d discovery,alldefendantsmovedforsummaryjudgment.   ` Thediscriminationdefendantsarguedthat_Hadfield_ l occupiedapositionforwhichpoliticalaffiliationwasa h requirementandthathethereforewasnotentitledtobringaclaim  ofunlawfulpoliticaldiscrimination.See,e.g.,_Galloza_v.Foy, p  389F.3d26,28(1stCir.2004)(statingthattheFirstAmendment !l" protectionagainstpoliticallymotivateddischargesdoesnotextend "$ topositionsforwhichpoliticalaffiliationisanappropriate t$& requirement).Thedueprocessdefendantsarguedthat_Hadfield_Ԁwas  &p!( notentitledtoahearingbecausehedidnothaveaproperty '#* interestincontinuedemploymentunderMassachusettslaw,andthat, x)$, evenifhedidhavearighttohearing,hisdueprocessclaimis $+t&. barredbythesocalled_Parratt_Hudsondoctrine.See#XXXX#XXXX_Parratt_v.  Taylor,451U.S.527(1981);Hudsonv.Palmer,468U.S.517(1984)#XXXX1#XXXX \ (statingthatafederalproceduraldueprocessclaimmaynotbe X basedontherandomandunauthorizedconductofgovernment   officialssolongasthestatehasprovidedanadequate `  _postdeprivation_Ԁremedy).  \   ` Inabrieforder,thedistrictcourtawardedsummary   judgmentforalldefendants.Thecourtagreedwiththe d  discriminationdefendantsthatpoliticalloyaltywasalegitimate `  jobrequirementforthepositionofADSforTraining.Astothe   proceduraldueprocessclaim,thecourtconcludedthat,evenif h _Hadfield_Ԁwasentitledtoahearing,hisfederalrightswerenot d violatedbecauseanydeprivationofprocesstowhich_Hadfield_Ԁwas  entitledresultedfromrandomandunauthorizedconductandthe l stateprovidedadequate_postdeprivation_Ԁremedies.Thisappeal h followed.    II. p   (83   0 ` A.0 ` (#` (#StandardofReview 8!" (# (#  ` Wereviewtheentryofsummaryjudgmentdenovo,viewing #P$ therecordinthelightmosthospitabletothepartyopposing $& summaryjudgment.See_Padilla_Ԅ_Garca_v.GuillermoRodriguez,212 X&!( F.3d69,73(1stCir.2000).Wedonotcredit"conclusory (T#* allegations,improbableinferences,andunsupportedspeculation"in )%, thisanalysis.Medina_Muoz_v._R.J._ԀReynoldsTobaccoCo.,896 \+&. F.2d5,8(1stCir.1990).Summaryjudgmentisproperonlyifthe  record,readfavorablytothenonmovingparty,reflectsnogenuine \ issuesofmaterialfactandtheundisputedfactsindicatethatthe X movantisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeeFed.R.   Civ.P.56(c).  `   ` B.0 PoliticalDiscrimination \  (# (#  󀀀 ` Webeginbyconsideringwhetherthediscrimination $  defendantsmettheirsummaryjudgmentburdenofdemonstratingthat   theADSforTrainingwasapositionforwhichpoliticalaffiliation ,|  wasanappropriatebasisfordismissal._ #  1      _ԀAsmentionedabove,we ( performthisanalysisbydrawingallreasonableinferencesinfavor  of_Hadfield_.Butthequestionofwhetherapositionissubjectto 0 politicaldischargeisalegalquestionforthecourt,evenifit , presentsaclosecall.SeeFlynnv.CityofBoston,140F.3d42,  44(1stCir.1998);_McGurrin_Ԁ_Ehrhard_v.Connolly,867F.2d92,93 4 (1stCir.1989). X  0  ` TheFirstAmendmentrighttoassociationincludesa   qualifiedrighttobefreefromdischargefrompublicemployment 8!" merelybecauseofpoliticalaffiliation.See_Elrod_v.Burns,427 "4$ U.S.347,35960(1976).Buttherightdoesnotextendtoall $& publicemployees.Seeid.at360.In_Elrod_,theCourtrecognized <&!( thatthewholesaleprotectionofpublicemployeescouldundermine '8#* representativegovernmentbyforcingthosewhowinelectiveoffice  toemployindividualswhodisagreewiththeprevailingcandidate's \ (andpresumablytheelectorate's)goals.Seeid.at367;Flynn, X 140F.3dat46.Topermittheprevailingcandidatesufficient   leewaytoenacthisorherprograms,individualsinpolicymaking `  andconfidentialpositionswereheldtobeexcludedfromthe  \  prohibitionagainstpoliticallymotivateddischarges.See_Elrod_,   427U.S.at367&375. d   ` Fouryearslater,in_Branti_v._Finkle_,445U.S.507,518 `  (1980),theCourtreaffirmedtheconstitutionalprotectionagainst   patronagedismissalsbutexpandeduponthe h "policymaker/confidentialemployee"test.TheCourtinstructed d thatapublicemployeeisnotprotectedfromapolitically  motivateddischargeif"thehiringauthoritycandemonstratethat l partyaffiliationisanappropriaterequirementfortheeffective h performanceofthepublicofficeinvolved."Id.   ` #XXXX2#XXXXAfter_Branti_,thiscourtandothershaveengagedinthe p  processofdevelopingasomewhatevolvingstandardforidentifying !l" thosepositionsthatfitwithintheexceptionarticulatedbythe "$ SupremeCourt.SeeFlynn,140F.3dat45(describingthe t$& "porridge"ofgeneralstatementsandteststhathavebeenapplied  &p!( inthewakeof_Branti_).Wehavetendedtoask(1)iftheposition '#* dealswithissuesoverwhichtherecanbepartisandifferencesand x)$, (2)ifthespecificresponsibilitiesofthepositionresemblethose $+t&. ofapolicymakerorotherofficeholderwhosefunctionsaresuch  thatpartyaffiliationisanappropriatecriterionforholdingthe \ post.See_Galloza_,389F.3dat29.Wehaverecognized,however, X thatdecidingwhetherapositionisprotectedfrompolitical   dischargeisnot"amatterofinsertingvariablesintoaknown `  equation."Id.Rather,itrequiresacourttolookcloselyatthe  \  positiontoidentifyitsinherentdutiesandthentomakea   judgmentaboutwhetherthepositionisoneforwhichpolitical d  affiliationisanappropriaterequirement.See_Duriex_Ԅ_Gauthier_v. `  Lopez_Nieves_,274F.3d4,1011(1stCir.2001).    ` Withthatsaid,ourcasesdoyieldsomegeneral t principleswhichhelpdemarcatethelinebetweenprotectedandnon  p protectedpositions.InFlynn,wesurveyedourprecedentsto  concludethat"thecaseshaveregularlyupheldagainstFirst x Amendmentchallengethedismissalonpoliticalgroundsofmidor $t upperlevelofficialsoremployeeswhoaresignificantlyconnected   topolicymaking."140F.3dat45.Weexplainedthatanemployee |  isnotimmunefromterminationmerelybecausetheemployee"stands (!x" apartfrompartisanpolitics,"isnottheultimate_decisionmaker_Ԁin "$$ theagency,orisguidedinsomeresponsibilitiesbytechnicalor $&  professionalstandards.Id.at46."Itisenoughthatthe ,&|!( official[is]involved[inpolicy],ifonlyasanadviser,  implementerorspokesperson."Id. #  2      ׀󀀀 \   ` Applicationofourcasesconvincesusthatpolitical X affiliationisanappropriaterequirementforthepositionofADS   forTraining.TheSheriffisinvolvedinseveralareaswhichcan `  beaffectedbypartisandivisions.TheSheriffrunsaprisonand  \  thereforemustmakenumerouspoliticallyinfluenceddecisionsabout   prisonoperationsandthetreatmentofinmatessomeormanyof d  whichdecisionscouldbethesubjectofpartisanpolitical `  contention.ThesedecisionsareembodiedinDepartmentpolicies   anddirectiveswhichareputintoeffectbyDepartmentemployees h workingdirectlywithintheprison.Theseemployees,inturn, d learnaboutthenewpoliciesanddirectivesprimarilythrough  training.TheSheriff'seffortstoimplementhisagendacould l thereforebefrustratedbyatrainingprogramwhichdoesnot h accuratelyreflecthisviews.#XXXXI#XXXX   ` TheADSfortheTrainingisahighrankingemployeein p  thispoliticallyimportantbranchoftheDepartment.Accordingto !l" theformaljobdescription,_ #  3      _ԀtheADSforTrainingsupervisesand  directsthetrainingprogramforDepartmentpersonnel;develops \ instructorresources;arrangesforclassesandseminars;researches X curricula,methods,policies,andprocedurespertinenttotraining;   developsandadministersevaluativetesting;instructscertain `  trainingcourses;coordinatesuseofdepartmenttrainingresources;  \  assuresthatinstructorsmeettrainingcertificationrequirements;   anddevelopsthetrainingschedulebasedontheavailabilityof d  personnel. `   ` Inourview,thisjobdescriptiondemonstratesthatthe   ADSforTrainingisan"adviser,implementer,[and]spokesperson" h concerningDepartmentpolicy.Flynn,140F.3dat46.The d position'sdutiesincluderesearchingmethods,policiesand  proceduresrelatedtotraininganddevelopinginstructorresources. l ThesedutiesillustratethattheADSforTrainingworks h independentlytoreviseandimprovethetrainingprogram.Indeed,  _Hadfield_ԀacknowledgedthatheadvisedtheDirectorofTraining(to p  whomhereported)concerningproposedchangesintraining !l" operations.ThereisnodisputethenthattheADSforTraining "$  advisesontrainingpolicy. t$& _  ` TheADSforTrainingisalsoapolicyimplementer.   Subjecttoonly"generalsupervision,"theADSforTraining \ "supervisesanddirectsthetrainingprogram"forhisorher X assignedprogramareaswithintheDepartment.Openended   responsibilitiesareatelltalesignthatthepositionincludesa `  policyimplementingfunction.SeeGalloza,389F.3dat32;Duriex  \  Gauthier,274F.3dat10.    ` Finally,theADSforTrainingactsasaninternal d  spokespersonfortheSheriff.Theofficeholderisresponsiblefor `  instructingcertaincoursesandsupervisingtheinstructors.In   theseroles,theADSforTrainingactsastheSheriff's h spokespersonbyrepresentingtheSheriff'sviewstotherankand d fileandtohissubordinateinstructors.SeeVazquezRiosv.  HernandezColon,819F.2d319,328(1stCir.1987)(statingthata l jobrequiringanofficeholdertoactasspokespersonforpolitical h officialcouldnotbedoneeffectivelyexceptbyonewhosharedthe  [official's]politicalbeliefs).Hadfieldacknowledgesthathe p  representedtheviewsoftheSheriffaspartofhisduties.#XXXXY#XXXXԀ#XXXXg#XXXX !l"  ` ThedutiesoftheADSforTrainingresembleothermidto "$ upperlevelpositionsforwhichwehaveheldpoliticalaffiliation t$& isanappropriaterequirement.Seesupran.2.Forexample,we  &p!( heldthattheheadofthePersonnelandGeneralServicesOfficein '#* thePuertoRicoOfficeoftheOmbudsmanwasapolicymaking x)$, position.SeeDuriexGauthier,274F.3dat10.Wereliedonthe $+t&. position'sopenendedresponsibilitiesfor"planningand  supervisionofpersonnelactivities"andthefactthatthe \ officeholderreportedtothoseintheupperechelonsoftheagency. X Id.Similarly,inFlynn,weheldthattheassociatedirectorfor   fieldoperationsoftheBostonCommunityCenterswasnotprotected `  fromapoliticaldischarge.140F.3dat45.Thedutiesofthat  \  positionincludedoverseeingseveralprograms,actingasaliason   tootheragencies,andmaintainingagencycompliancewithlegal d  duties.Seeid. `   ` Despitethepolicymakingorimplementingdutiesinherent   intheADSforTrainingposition,Hadfieldcontendsthat,infact, h heservedinaprimarilyadministrativerole,andthatthepolicy d aspectsofthetrainingprogramwerehandledbytheDirectorof  Training.ButthefactthatHadfieldmaynothavebeeninvolvedin l suchactivitiesintheprioradministrationisoflittle h significance.Hisjobdescriptioncouldbereadtoencompass  participationinpolicymakingandpoliticalaffairs,andthe p  Sheriff,informinghisnewadministration,couldbefrustratedby !l" anADSforTrainingwhoseviewvariedfromtheSheriff's.Anew "$ administrationshouldnotbeoverlyhamstrunginfillingkey t$& positionswithloyalemployeessimplybecauseofthewaytheprior  &p!( administrationoperated.SeeGalloza,389F.3dat31(statingthat '#* "thegoalofthe[Branti]analysisisnottoshackleanew x)$, administration").ThisiswhytheBrantianalysiseschewsreliance $+t&. @     on"whatfunctionsaparticularoccupantofthepositionmayin  factcarryoutfromtimetotime"infavoroffocusingon"the \ essentialattributesoftheposition."Id.at30.#XXXXh#XXXX X  ` Moreover,aswehavealreadystated,anemployeeisnot   protectedmerelybecauseheisa"subordinatewithin[his]own `  office[]."Flynn,140F.3dat45&46.Itissufficientthatan  \  officeholderisresponsibleforimplementingpoliciesthatderive   frompartisandecisionsmadebyothers. #  4      ׀Id.at46."Thesemajor d  responsibilitiesmean[]thatpoliticaldisagreements[betweenthe `  ADSforTraining]andhispoliticallyappointed[superiors]could   leadtolesseffectiveimplementationofpoliticalgoals." #  5      ׀Id.at h 45.   ` Insum,theevidencedemonstratesthattheADSfor \ TrainingisatornearthetopoftheDepartment'straining X program.Theofficeholderhasbroadpowertoadvisepolicymakers,   toimplementpolicy,andtoactasaspokespersonfortheSheriff `  torankandfilepersonnel.Becausethetrainingprogramis  \  criticaltotheSheriff'sabilitytoimplementhisagenda,itis   reasonablefortheSherifftofillthispositionwithanindividual d  whomhebelievesiscommittedtohisprogram.Wetherefore `  concludethatpoliticalaffiliationisanappropriaterequirement   fortheADSforTrainingandthatthedistrictcourtcorrectly h grantedthediscriminationdefendantssummaryjudgmenton d Hadfield'sFirstAmendmentclaim.#XXXXs#XXXXԀ   $(88 ! !"3"   ` 3{2  C  .3  0   ProceduralDueProcess 3{&|݌l (# (# Ќ   ` #XXXX{#XXXXHadfieldallegesthatthedueprocessdefendantsviolated 4 hisrighttoproceduraldueprocessbydenyinghimahearing 0 concerninghistermination.Thedueprocessdefendantscontend   thatHadfieldwasnotentitledtoahearingbecausehedidnothave 8!" apropertyinterestincontinuedemployment.Theyalsoarguethat, "4$ eveniftheywerewronginthisrespect,theParrattHudson $& doctrinebarsHadfield'sclaim.#XXXX }#ԀXXXX <&!(  ` Hadfield'sclaimdependsonhimhavingapropertyright  (p#* incontinuedemployment.SeeBd.ofRegentsv.Roth,408U.S.564, )%, 57678(1972).Ifhedid,hecouldnotbedischargedwithoutdue  processwhich,intheemploymentcontext,includestherighttoa \ predeprivationhearing.SeeClevelandBd.ofEd.v.Loudermill, X 470U.S.532,53842(1985).WhetherHadfieldpossessedaproperty   interestinhisemploymentisamatterofMassachusettslaw. `  Seeid.at538    \   ` ThedueprocessdefendantsarguethatHadfielddidnot   haveapropertyinterestincontinuedemployment(andthuswasnot d  entitledtoahearing)becausehisemploymentwasgovernedbyMass. `  Gen.Lawsch.126,8A.Thisstatuteprovidesthatanydeputy   superintendentappointedbytheSheriffforemploymentinthehouse h ofcorrectionsservesatthepleasureoftheSheriffandisexempt d fromcivilserviceprotection.Hadfieldcountersthathis  employmentwasgovernedbyMass.Gen.Lawsch.35,51which l providescoveredemployeeswithcivilserviceprotection.Under h thisstatute,coveredemployeesmaynotbeterminatedwithout  receivingnoticeandahearingfromtheappointingauthority.In p  addition,theymayappealtheappointingauthority'sdecisionto !l" thecountypersonnelboardand,ifstilldissatisfied,tothestate "$ courts.Aspartoftheappeal,anaggrievedemployeemayclaim t$& thathewasdeniedtherequisiteprocess,includingthecomplete  &p!( denialofahearing.SeePuorrov.Commonwealth,794N.E.2d624, '#* 628(Mass.App.Ct.2003)(holdingthatdeputysheriff,whowas x)$, terminatedwithoutahearing,could,aspartofanappealunder $+t&. Mass.Gen.Lawsch.35,51,claimthathewasdeniedahearing  becausehewasmisclassifiedasanoncoveredemployee).A \ prevailingemployeemayobtainreinstatementandrecoverbackpay.#XXXXp# X  ` XXXXBecauseweconcludethatHadfield'sclaimisbarredby   theParrattHudsondoctrine,wedonotdecideHadfield'sproper `  employmentclassificationunderMassachusettslaw.Weassume  \  arguendothatHadfieldpossessedapropertyinterestincontinued   employmentandtheconcomitantrighttoahearingconcerninghis d  termination. `   ` WehavesummarizedtheParrattHudsondoctrineas   follows: h A  ` 0 Whenadeprivationofaproperty d interestisoccasionedbyrandomand O unauthorizedconductbystate : officials,theSupremeCourthas % repeatedlyemphasizedthatthedue  processinquiryislimitedtothe  issueoftheadequacyofthe  postdeprivationremediesprovidedby  thestate.l   ?A O'Neillv.Baker,210F.3d41,40(1stCir.2000)(quotingLowev. B   Scott,959F.2d323,340(1stCir.1992)(alterationsinO'Neill !>" omitted).ParrattHudsonshieldsapublicentityfromafederal #$ dueprocessclaimwherethedenialofprocesswascausedbythe F% & randomandunauthorizedconductofgovernmentofficialsandwhere &B"( thestatehasprovidedadequatepostdeprivationremediesto (#* correcttheofficials'randomandunauthorizedacts.SeeMardv. J*%, TownofAmherst,350F.3d184,193(1stCir.2003);Brownv.Hot, +F'. Sexy&SaferProds.,Inc.,68F.3d525,53637(1stCir.1995).  Thedoctrinethuspermits"proceduralclaimstoberesolvedin \ stateforumswherestates...provideadequateremedies." X O'Neill,210F.3dat50.    ` Ourcasesestablishthatagovernmentofficialhas `  committedarandomandunauthorizedactwhenheorshemisapplies  \  statelawtodenyanindividualtheprocessdueunderacorrect   applicationofstatelaw.SeeO'Neill,210F.3dat50;Herwinsv. d  CityofRevere,163F.3d15,19(1stCir.1998);Croninv.Townof `  Amesbury,81F.3d257,260(1stCir.1996)(percuriam);Brown,68   F.3dat53637;Lowe,959F.2dat344.Inotherwords,conductis h "randomandunauthorized"withinthemeaningofParrattHudson d whenthechallengedstateactionisaflawintheofficial's  conductratherthanaflawinthestatelawitself.& #  6      ׀SeeHerwins, l 168F.3dat19(statingthat,butforParrattHudson,"federal h suitsmightbebroughtforcountlesslocalmistakesbyofficials  inadministeringtheendlessarrayofstatelawsandlocal p  ordinances"). !l"  ` Wehaveappliedthisdoctrineinthepublicemployment "$ context.InCronin,werejectedanemployee'sproceduraldue t$& processclaimbecausetheclaimwasnotdirectedatthe  &p!( sufficiencyofthestatutorilyprovidedpreterminationprocedures,  butratherattheconductofthegovernmentofficialschargedwith \ implementingtheprocedures.81F.3dat260&n.2.Similarly,in X O'Neill,werejectedanemployee'sproceduraldueprocessclaim   basedonthefailureofastateactortoprovideanemployeewith `  thestatutorilyrequiredpreterminationnotice.210F.3dat50.  \  Weexplainedthat"statelawclearlyprovid[ed]foradequate   noticeandthere[was]nosuggestionthateitherbyformalor d  informalmeansthestateha[d]authorizedthegivingofinadequate `  noticetopersonswhomaybeterminated,orthatthiswasanyform   ofregularpractice."Id.;seealsoLearnardv.Inhabitantsof h TownofVanBuren,182F.Supp.2d115,112425(D.Me.2002) d (applyingParattHudsonandFirstCircuitprecedenttorejectan  employee'sproceduraldueprocessclaimbasedonthedenialofa l hearingbecausestatelawprovidedthattheemployeehada h propertyinterestincontinuedemployment).   ` Here,Hadfieldwasdeniedahearingbecausethedue p  processdefendantserred(iftheyerredatall)bymisapplying !l" Massachusettscivilservicelaw.#XXXX੉#XXXXThisdeterminationwasnot "$ discretionaryorgovernedbyaformalorinformalpolicy.1 #  7      ׀Cf. t$& Zinermonv.Burch,494U.S.113,136138(1990)(holdingthatthe  &p!( #O #e #  ParrattHudsondoctrinedoesnotapplywherethedenialof e predeprivationprocessresultedfromthestatesanctioned  discretionoftheofficialtodecidewhatprocessisnecessary); X O'Neill,210F.3dat50(statingthatthedoctrinemaynotapply i  whenunlawfulconductisinaccordwithinformalpolicy).Rather,   iferror,itwassimplyamissaprehensionofstatelaw.Thisis  \  thesortofrandomandunauthorizedconducttowhichParratt m  Hudsonapplies.SeeHerwins,163F.3dat19.    ` Havingconcludedthatanydeprivationofprocesswas `  causedbyrandomandunauthorizedconductbythedueprocess q  defendants,weturntowhetherMassachusettslawprovidedHadfield  withanadequatepostdeprivationremedy.Wehavepreviously d consideredthisissueunderanalmostidenticalMassachusetts u statute.SeeCronin,81F.3dat260.InCronin,wefoundthata ! Massachusettscivilservicestatute,whichallowedaterminated h employeetoappealtheterminationdecisiontothecivilservice y commissionandthestatesuperiorcourt(and,ifsuccessful,to %  obtainreinstatementandbackpay)providedasufficient  l" postdeprivationremedy.Seeid.(discussingMass.Gen.Lawsch. }"$ 31,44);seealsoHerwins,163F.3dat1920(statingthat )$& administrativeandjudicialreviewisthe"conventionalregime" %p!( forremedyingerroneousdecisionsbystateofficialsandthus '#* constitutesadequatepostdeprivationprocess). -)$, ЀThestatuteatissueinthiscaseismaterially *t&. OY e   indistinguishable,seeMass.Gen.Lawsch.35,51,andtherefore  providedHadfieldwithanadequatepostdeprivationremedyfor \ purposesofParrattHudson.Hadfieldchosenottopursuehis X postdeprivationremedyinstatecourt,butthereisnodispute   thatitwasavailabletohim.SeeHerwins,163F.3dat19 `  (statingthatit"makesnosense"topermitaplaintifftopursue  \  afederaldueprocessclaimafterignoringthe"stateprovided   proceduralremedy").Accordingly,thedistrictcourtcorrectly d  awardedthedueprocessdefendantssummaryjudgment. `    III.      ` Forthereasonsstated,thedistrictcourt'sjudgmentis   affirmed.  0  #XXXX#