CA1: qualified immunity in joint-decision-making

Philip v. Cronin, No. 06-1860.  This case affirms a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) motion for a directed verdict.  Though the District Court gave a lot of reasons for directed verdict, the First says that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity, and seems to indicate that the jury would have been reasonable in concluding that the defendant was, indeed liable..  The issue involves whether a medical examiner was fired.  He was either “depending on one's point of view, either a constant complainer or a constant seeker of improvement in the OCME.”  So, this really comes down to an issue of retaliation for various complaints.  But, since the decision to fire the defendant was made in conjunction with other decision-makers (besides the defendant) the First says that the defendant or a reasonable person in his position wouldn’t have known that what he was doing was unconstitutional.