Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and in other jurisdictions in general.
December 20, 2011
Denial of tenure alleged to have been based on the educator’s exercising her First Amendment rights to free speech
August 06, 2010
Superior reporting employee's misconduct had either absolute immunity or qualified immunity from liability
Taylor v Brentwood UFSD, CA2, 143 F.3d 679
A Brentwood school principal, Anne Rooney, alleged that district teacher, Charles B. Taylor, used corporal punishment in violation of district policy. After investigating the allegation, the district filed disciplinary charges against Taylor. The disciplinary panel found him guilty of the charges and he was suspended without pay for one year.
Taylor then filed a Section 1983 [Civil Rights] claim, naming Rooney and other district officials as defendants. He contended that his one-year suspension from teaching constituted race discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection). A federal district court jury agreed with Taylor’s arguments and said that Rooney was liable for over $185,000 in damages. Rooney appealed and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reversed the lower court’s decision.
The court cited with approval Rooney’s arguments that:
1. Her action [reporting the alleged use of corporal punishment] was not the proximate cause of any injury sustained by Taylor;
2. She had either absolute immunity or qualified immunity from liability because she acted pursuant to her official duty to report complaints regarding the use of corporal punishment by teachers to her superiors; and
3. Taylor, having been found guilty by the disciplinary panel, could not relitigate the issue of whether he was treated differently from similarly situated Caucasian teachers in his Section 1983 action.
The Circuit Court commented that “Taylor had a history of physical confrontations with students ...” occurring throughout the administrations of three different principals. It also took notice of the District’s “Corporal Punishment Policy” and evidence showing that Taylor had been “repeatedly reminded” of the policy over a fifteen-year period and had received several reprimands regarding the manner in which he disciplined students.
The Circuit Court ruled that Rooney could not be held liable because she was not proximately cause Taylor’s suspension. That, said the Court, action resulted following an investigation and a due process hearing in which Taylor was found guilty. It said that its decision in Jefferies v Harleston, 52 F3d 9, controlled the outcome of this case.
In Jefferies, the Circuit Court ruled that “although the actions of certain defendants were unconstitutional, liability under Section 1983 did not attach because such actions could not be considered the cause of any injury sustained by the plaintiff.”
The Court said that it believed that the independent investigations of the incidents by school officials, together with the school board’s filing charges culminating in the decision of the disciplinary hearing panel to suspend Taylor, constituted a superseding cause of Taylor’s injury, breaking the causal link between any racial animus Rooney may have had and Taylor’s suspension.
Concluding that no reasonable jury could find Rooney’s actions to be the cause of Taylor’s injury, the Court said that no new trial was necessary. Accordingly, all that was needed was for the Circuit Court to remand the case to the district court with instructions to enter judgment for Rooney.
April 20, 2023
Qualified immunity claimed by governmental officials in class action brought in federal court
Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages for violation of a right under federal law if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
This ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, addresses claims by government officials of their "entitlement to qualified immunity" in the underlying litigation.
Following a discussion the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity and then reviewing the plaintiff's claims of violations of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United State, the Circuit Court of Appeals:
1. Affirmed the district court's denial of the government officials' motion for judgment on the plaintiff's pleadings concerning his Fourteenth Amendment claim;
2. Reversed the district court's denial of the government officials' motion for judgment on the plaintiff's pleadings concerning his Eighth Amendment claim; and
3. Remanded the matter to the district court "for further proceedings."
Click HERE to access the text of Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.
January 05, 2018
Grand jury witness may claim absolute immunity regarding his or her perjurious testimony with respect to any §1983 claim based on such perjurious testimony
February 21, 2018
A governmental entity operating in a public capacity may loose its right to claim sovereign immunity in litigation if it is found that the underlying cause of action involved its acting in a proprietary capacity
December 01, 2011
Public official must claim his or her qualified immunity as a defense when sued in federal court
July 23, 2016
From the LawBlogs – Week ending July 16, 2016
From the LawBlogs – Week ending July 16, 2016
December 06, 2018
Employee alleges unlawful retaliation after reporting the unauthorized use of a computer program by another employee
* The Division of Criminal Justice Services has a variety of responsibilities, including law enforcement training; collection and analysis of statewide crime data; maintenance of criminal history information and fingerprint files; administrative oversight of the state's DNA databank, in partnership with the New York State Police; funding and oversight of probation and community correction programs; administration of federal and state criminal justice funds; support of criminal justice-related agencies across the state; and administration of the state's Sex Offender Registry.
December 10, 2018
Employee alleges unlawful retaliation after reporting the unauthorized use of a State computer database by another employee
* The Division of Criminal Justice Services has a variety of responsibilities, including law enforcement training; collection and analysis of statewide crime data; maintenance of criminal history information and fingerprint files; administrative oversight of the state's DNA databank in partnership with the New York State Police; funding and oversight of probation and community correction programs; administration of federal and state criminal justice funds; support of criminal justice-related agencies across the state; and the administration of New York State's Sex Offender Registry.
June 23, 2020
Arms of New York State may claim 11th Amendment immunity from lawsuits in federal court
The federal District Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint under color of University having Eleventh Amendment immunity and Plaintiff appealed.**
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, held that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff's claims in consideration of the Eleventh Amendment, "which precludes suits against states unless the state expressly waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that immunity, neither of which occurred here."
State institutions of higher education such as University, explained the Second Circuit, are arms of the State of New York for Eleventh Amendment purposes and are therefore entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.***
The court noted that the question of whether Eleventh Amendment immunity constitutes a true issue of subject matter jurisdiction or is more appropriately viewed as an affirmative defense ”has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court or this Court." However the Circuit Court concluded that the issue need not be addressed within the ambit of Plaintiff's appeal because the answer would not affect its decision to affirm the District Court's ruling.
A summary of common types of "immunity and qualified privilege" that may be claimed by a public employer and its officers and employees involved in litigation where the performance of official duties is a consideration is posted on the Internet at:
** Plaintiff also appealed the denial of his motions for recusal of certain judges and the disqualification of opposing counsel.
*** Plaintiff contended that the Eleventh Amendment cannot bar the prospective relief he seeks — the termination of the University’s federal funding. The Circuit Court noted that the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity for prospective relief applies only when a state official is sued, which Plaintiff had not done.
March 22, 2018
Distinguishing between official acts and unofficial acts for the purposes of claiming qualified immunity from lawsuits in New York State courts
October 26, 2023
A college student disciplinary hearing is not a quasi-judicial proceeding absent certain procedural safeguards
Plaintiff appealed a partial final judgment by a United States District Court judge dismissing his claims alleging "defamation and tortious interference with contract" brought against Yale University and certain named parties [University]. University had accused Plaintiff, of sexual assaulting another student, "Jane Doe" [Doe], while both were students at Yale.
Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in finding:
1. University had absolute quasi-judicial immunity for statements made at a University disciplinary hearing that resulted in Plaintiff’s expulsion from Yale; and
2. Plaintiff’s tortious interference claims were untimely.
In its preliminary review, the Second Circuit said it was unable to determine whether the Connecticut Supreme Court [Connecticut] would recognize the Yale disciplinary hearing at issue as a quasi-judicial proceeding, supporting University's claim of absolute immunity in the action brought by Plaintiff. Accordingly, it certified questions pertinent to that issue to Connecticut.
Connecticut responded, indicating that absolute immunity could not be claimed by University in Plaintiff's action because the Yale disciplinary hearing at issue was not a quasi-judicial proceeding. Connecticut explained the Yale disciplinary hearing lacked certain procedural safeguards such as an oath requirement, the ability to call witnesses, an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, meaningful assistance of counsel, and an adequate record for appeal, all typically associated with judicial proceedings.
Further, while Connecticut recognized the possibility for participants in such a hearing to be shielded by qualified immunity, Connecticut concluded the "University is not presently entitled to dismissal on that ground because [Plaintiff’s] complaint sufficiently pleads the malice necessary to defeat such immunity."
Accordingly, the Second Circuit:
1. Affirmed, in part, so much of
the district court's judgment that dismissed as untimely Plaintiff’s tortious interference
claim based on Doe’s 2015 statements; and
2. Vacated, in part, so much of the district court's judgment that dismissed Plaintiff's action under color of absolute immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s defamation and tortious interference claims based on Doe’s 2018 statements.
The Second Circuit then remanded the matter to the district court "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.