Anemone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 629 F.3d 97

Anemone was MTA Director of Security and Deputy Executive Director until May 2003; he alleges retaliatory actions culminating in termination for protected speech about corruption.
Casale, Anemone’s deputy, conducted corruption investigations into contractors; their actions caused internal friction and complaints from multiple sources.
Anemone and Casale pursued Bauer/Plasser allegations; Lapp directed that the investigation be referred to the OIG; Anemone resisted and continued unofficial inquiries.
In Feb–Mar 2003, Anemone and Casale engaged with the Queens District Attorney; Anemone later acknowledged discussing a confidential informant, later deemed non-existent by the OIG.
On March 28–31, 2003 the OIG Interim Report criticized Anemone and Casale for fabricating an informant and obstructing the Bauer/Plasser investigation; Anemone was placed on administrative leave and subsequently terminated on May 8, 2003.
The district court granted summary judgment, applying Mt. Healthy and Garcetti/Pickering analyses, and the Second Circuit affirmed, holding no triable issue on retaliation aside from protected speech.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Anemone’s Queens DA communications were protected First Amendment speech.	Anemone contends protected as public concern in official investigations.	Speech occurred within official duties; not protected under Garcetti.	Not protected; discussions were within official duties.
Mt. Healthy defense applicability to Anemone’s Times speech.	Even with improper motive, speech caused disciplinary action.	Defendants would have acted anyway due to insubordination.	Mt. Healthy defense applies; action would have occurred absent protected speech.
Whether Anemone’s Times article speech could be punished under Pickering without implicating retaliation.	Speech was in the public interest about corruption.	Disruptive impact justifies discipline; timing supports non-retaliatory basis.	Mt. Healthy defense forecloses First Amendment retaliation claim; Pickering not dispositive.
Whether Anemone’s procedural due process claims survive after stigma-plus reasoning.	Post-termination name-clearing required under due process.	Segal and Article 78 provide adequate process.	Stigma-plus due process claim dismissed; Article 78 remedy adequate.
Whether conspiracy claims against individuals were properly dismissed.	Conspiracy to violate rights existed among defendants.	Intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars such claims.	Conspiracy claims not reached; not necessary to decide.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech made pursuant to official duties not protected as citizen speech)
Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (S. Ct. 1977) (defense: would have acted anyway absent protected speech)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing test for speech related to public concerns by public employees)
Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (framework for public employee retaliation analysis)
Segal v. City of New York, 459 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2006) (name-clearing due process context for at-will employees)