Brown v. City of Syracuse
673 F.3d 141
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Brown, an African American former Syracuse police officer, was suspended with pay in April 2000 after involvement with a 15-year-old girl whom he had rented a hotel room for.
- The girl was located, Brown lied to colleagues about his involvement, and state police charged him with Endangering the Welfare of a Child and Obstructing Governmental Administration.
- Brown pleaded guilty to Endangering on June 20, 2000; Syracuse Police Department proceedings followed, culminating in a July 2000 suspension and post-termination proceedings.
- Brown filed suit in 2001 alleging §1981, §1983, Title VII, NYHRL, and state-law claims; the district court dismissed some claims and Brown I (summary order) vacated/modified parts of the dismissal.
- On remand, the district court held Brown’s employment terminated by law upon conviction (Endangering) per Feola, limited post-conviction evidence, and granted summary judgment on several discrimination claims; the New York Court of Appeals later reversed Feola’s treatment of Endangering, prompting further proceedings and this appeal.
- Brown argues law-of-the-case and other rulings conflict with Brown I; the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law of the case guidance on remand | Brown claims Brown I governs remand rulings | Appellees argue law-of-the-case allows reconsideration post-Feola | Law of the case applied; district court did not violate mandate rule |
| Admissibility of post-conviction adverse actions | Loss of overtime plus pre-conviction acts prove adverse action | Post-conviction actions cannot be adverse after law-termination | Adverse action must occur before termination; post-conviction actions excluded |
| Discrimination claims (Title VII, §1981, NYHRL) | Suspension with pay plus alleged unequal treatment shows discrimination | Joseph controls; suspension with pay is not per se adverse; no similarly situated white officer evidence | No adverse employment action proven; claims fail as a matter of law |
| Equal protection claim (selective treatment) | SPD treated Brown differently from white officers | Diesel/Leather limit recoverable claims; no discriminatory motive shown | No cognizable equal protection claim; no constitutional injury shown |
| Discovery sanctions | Sanctions warranted for discovery failures | Court acted within discretion; sanctions not warranted | District court’s sanctions decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Feola v. Carroll, 10 N.Y.3d 569 (N.Y. 2008) (Endangering is an oath-of-office offense; forfeits office upon conviction; retroactivity considerations discussed)
- Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.2006) (Suspension with pay during an investigation is not an adverse action absent further changes)
- Diesel v. Town of Lewisboro, 232 F.3d 92 (2d Cir.2000) (Selective treatment claims limited; no blue-wall immunity for ordinary police conduct)
- Leather v. Ten Eyck, 2 F.App’x 145 (2d Cir.2001) (Discriminatory investigation can support equal protection if targeted for protected activity)
- Brown I, City of Syracuse, 197 Fed.Appx. 22 (2d Cir.2006) (Summary order; limited law-of-the-case context for remand)