Plaintiff [Appellant] served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (“RIOC”), a public benefit corporation that governs New York City’s Roosevelt Island.
On June 19, 2020, the New York Governor’s Office terminated Appellant, such dismissal to take effective immediately. That same day a senior adviser to then-Governor Andrew Cuomo informed a New York Post reporter that Appellant had been terminated following a complaint and investigation into alleged offensive comments purportedly made by Appellant.
Quoting the said adviser as its primary source, a Post newspaper article soon followed captioned: “Roosevelt Island Operating Corp. head fired over ‘racially and sexually offensive’ remarks.”
Appellant denied the claims attributed to the adviser by the Post. According to Appellant, Appellant's termination was a political reprisal for Appellant’s complaints concerning New York City authorities’ alleged refusal to address weather-related threats to Roosevelt Island. Appellant further alleged that the Governor’s Office sought to discredit her by feeding false allegations to the Post.
After two unsuccessful state court proceedings, Appellant brought a federal “stigma-plus” constitutional claim for money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that her termination and alleged public smearing by public officials deprived her of a liberty interest without due process of law.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court [Circuit Court] said the question before it was "not whether [Appellant] states a meritorious §1983 claim, but whether the [federal] district court below correctly concluded that, under New York law, the doctrine of res judicata precludes [Appellant] from asserting any §1983 claim arising from her termination".
The Circuit Court concluded that Appellant’s state court dismissals "do not preclude her instant §1983 claim", noting that the state court dismissals adjudicated Appellant’s discrimination claims on the merits while expressly preserving Appellant’s right to refile her §1983 claim in another forum.
The Circuit Court explained that under New York law, the doctrine of res judicata does not bar a claim that was previously dismissed without prejudice and with express leave to refile — even where other claims arising from the same transaction were dismissed on the merits.
Accordingly, the Circuit Court reversed the federal district court’s judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Click HERE to access the Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.