to the Board from Jack Kemp, then Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, regarding the accountability of Board members for their failure to act. They argue that this letter prompted their discontent with McBride to emerge in a more concrete form. The court merely notes that the resolution of this factual issue is irrelevant to the legal analysis set forth below. 2 . The court notes in passing that since his termination, McBride has worked part time at the Charleston Housing Authority. 3 . The court harbors grave doubts as to whether plaintiff has met his burden to show that he would not have been discharged "but for” the exercise of his First Amendment rights. See Pierson v. Housing Auth. of City of Grafton, 799 F.Supp. 596, 599 (N.D.W.Va.1992) (<HOLDING>). Since defendants have chosen expressly not to
holding that plaintiff must come forth with sufficient facts to permit a determination that his statements were a substantial motivating factor in his employment termination holding that plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to support a finding that a similar position existed after his termination holding that plaintiffs discrimination claim brought under new jerseys antidiscrimination statute was completely preempted by erisa where depriving plaintiff of his retirement benefits was the motivating purpose for and not merely a consequence of his termination holding that the close connection in time between the complaint and termination indicated that complaints could have been a motivating factor for employees termination holding that a plaintiff need only show that the results of a polygraph examination were a factor in the termination of employment and rejecting requirement that results be the sole factor for employees discharge