Bhattacharya v. SUNY Rockland Cmty. Coll.
17-1048-cv
2d Cir.Oct 10, 2017Background
- Robin Bhattacharya, an adjunct instructor at SUNY Rockland, sued the college and union alleging retaliation for refusing to permit student cheating and asserting First Amendment and state-law claims.
- The District Court dismissed Bhattacharya’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) for failure to state a federal claim, denied leave to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC) adding due-process claims, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- Bhattacharya appealed the dismissal of his First Amendment claim, the denial of leave to amend to add a due-process claim, and argued the district court should have remanded (rather than dismissed) his state-law claims after removal.
- The FAC alleged protected speech consisted of enforcing academic integrity / maintaining class discipline and asserted an academic-freedom theory under the First Amendment.
- The District Court concluded the speech was part of Bhattacharya’s official duties and not a matter of public concern; it thus dismissed federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAC alleges protected First Amendment speech by a public employee | Bhattacharya: refusing student cheating is protected speech and implicates academic freedom | Defendants: speech was part of job duties (class discipline), not citizen speech on public concern | Court: Not protected — Garcetti applies; speech was part of official duties and not public concern, claim dismissed |
| Whether Garcetti inapplicable to teaching/scholarship; academic freedom claim | Bhattacharya: Garcetti left open application to scholarship/teaching; invokes academic freedom | Defendants: speech here was disciplinary, not scholarly or curricular content | Court: Garcetti applies; even absent Garcetti, speech fails public-concern test; no academic-freedom claim pleaded |
| Whether leave to amend to add due-process claim should have been granted | Bhattacharya: proposed SAC would add due-process claim based on academic-freedom denial | Defendants: amendment would be futile because academic-freedom theory fails | Court: Denial affirmed as amendment would be futile and claim already addressed in earlier pleadings |
| Whether district court should have remanded state-law claims instead of dismissing them after declining supplemental jurisdiction | Bhattacharya: district court should remand removed state-law claims to state court | Defendants: dismissal without prejudice appropriate; district court has discretion | Court: No abuse of discretion in dismissing without prejudice; invites district court to clarify whether it intended remand given parties' lack of objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (public-employee speech must be as a citizen and on matters of public concern)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public-employee speech made pursuant to official duties not protected)
- Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ., 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2010) (teacher duties and classroom discipline as official duties)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014) (application of Garcetti to non-scholastic public-employee speech)
- Burt v. Gates, 502 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2007) (academic-freedom claims arise when curriculum or content is restricted)
- Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (distinguishing public-concern speech from personal grievances)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (district court discretion to remand or dismiss state claims when declining supplemental jurisdiction)
- Baylis v. Marriott Corp., 843 F.2d 658 (2d Cir. 1988) (same discretionary rule on remand vs dismissal)