Free speech does not protect individuals using epithets

Free speech does not protect individuals using epithets
Charles Williams v Town of Greenburgh, et al, 535 F.3d 71

A governmental entity may be sued for allegedly suppressing an individual’s Constitutional protected Freedom of Speech.

In the Williams case, the Second Circuit addressed, among other things, Williams’ allegation that the Town of Greenburgh’s actions against him were taken in retaliation for his exercising his right to free speech when it expelled him from a town facility and prosecuted him for trespass.

In addressing this aspect of Williams’ petition, the Second Circuit explained that it has “described the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in several ways, depending on the factual context, comparing Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir. 2001) (requiring a private citizen who sued a public official to show: “(1) [the plaintiff] has an interest protected by the First Amendment; (2) defendants’ actions were motivated or substantially caused by his exercise of that right; and (3) defendants’ actions effectively chilled the exercise of his First Amendment right”), with Johnson v. Ganim, 342 F.3d 105, 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (requiring evidence of “adverse employment action” where plaintiff was a public employee), and Gill v. Pidlypchak, 389 F.3d 379, 380 (2d Cir. 2004) (requiring, in the prison context, an adverse action by defendants and a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected speech).

Regardless of the factual context, said the court, it has required a plaintiff alleging retaliation to establish that his or her speech was protected by the First Amendment.

Citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, the Circuit Court noted that “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”

Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.

The court concluded that because Williams could not show that his speech was either silenced or chilled — i.e., that his right to free speech was actually violated — his claim failed as a matter of law and sustained the district court’s granting the Town’s motion for summary judgment dismissing his petition.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1124970.html

A so-called “Zipper Clause” bars considering the terms of a stipulation of settlement resolving grievances brought under an earlier CBA

A so-called “Zipper Clause” bars considering the terms of a stipulation of settlement resolving grievances brought under an earlier CBA
Local 2841 of N.Y. State Law Enforcement Officers Union, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v City of Albany, 53 AD3d 974

A stipulation of settlement was entered into by Local 2841 and the City of Albany to resolve a number of grievances filed under the then Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA]. By its terms, the stipulation “could not be modified or rescinded absent a subsequent writing of the parties.”

Subsequently the Local and the City negotiated and executed a successor CBA.

In the course of resolving a grievance brought under the new CBA, the arbitrator found that the stipulation made under the earlier CBA had not been modified or rescinded by any writing of the parties. Further, the arbitrator deemed the stipulation of settlement to be a rule of the Albany Police Department and, therefore, concluded that the City violated the terms of the CBA by not complying with its provisions.

The Appellate Division disagreed and vacated the arbitrator’s award.

The court said that “inasmuch as the successor CBA represents the entire agreement between the parties, it was not proper for the arbitrator to rely on the ‘stipulation of settlement’ flowing from the earlier CBA in resolving the instant grievance.”

“Accordingly,” ruled the Appellate Division, “the arbitrator exceeded his power in amending the terms of the CBA by considering that stipulation of settlement in contravention of an expressed term of the CBA which prohibited amending, modifying or deleting any provision thereof,” presumably viewing a term in the successor CBA as constituting “a subsequent writing of the parties” modifying or rescinding the terms of the stipulation of settlement entered into under the earlier CBA.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_06421.htm

Termination of employee for poor attitude and aggressive behavior recommended

Termination of employee for poor attitude and aggressive behavior recommended

Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v. Bell, OATH Index No. 1635/08

 

A Bridge and Tunnel Officer drew his firearm and pointed it at a customer after the customer reached into a bag during a dispute at the Queens Midtown Tunnel tollbooth.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Alessandra Zorgniotti found that the employee’s use of his firearm was reasonable but recommended his dismissal because the incident stemmed from his proven discourtesy and unexplained refusal to process the customer's toll.

The ALJ found that the respondent's significant history of customer complaints relating to his poor attitude and aggressive behavior made him a threat to public safety.