2013 WL 4023874
E.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Buckley, a SUNY bus driver from 2004 to June 2010, sues SUNY and several SUNY officials for federal and state claims after termination.
- Buckley became CSEA Shop Steward in Oct 2008 and alleges retaliation related to union activity and supervisory actions.
- Plaintiff filed original complaint; this court previously dismissed several federal and state claims with/without prejudice and granted leave to amend.
- An NYSDHR determination found no probable cause in Buckley’s separate discrimination complaint, and Buckley then filed an Amended Complaint.
- Amended Complaint adds detailed defendant-by-defendant allegations and a new exhibit alleging selective treatment and retaliation; the court later grants dismissal with prejudice.
- The court dismisses the Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)/(6), leaving Buckley with no surviving claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eleventh Amendment immunity bars §1981 claims. | Buckley pleads race-based discrimination by individual Defendants. | State entities and employees in official capacities are immune. | §1981 claims against State, SUNY, and official-capacity defendants barred. |
| Whether §1983 claims survive against individual Defendants. | Plaintiff alleges retaliation against speech protected by the First Amendment. | Plaintiff fails to show a causal link between speech and adverse action. | §1983 claims against individuals dismissed for lack of causation. |
| Whether Title VII, ADA, and ADEA claims against State actors survive. | Plaintiff asserts discrimination and retaliation on protected statuses. | Eleventh Amendment immunity and no individual-liability under these statutes. | Claims dismissed; no viable claims against State or individuals. |
| Whether hostile work environment claim is viable. | Work environment alleged to be hostile due to discrimination. | Plaintiff failed to plead facts showing a hostile environment. | Hostile environment claim dismissed. |
| Whether state-law claims can proceed after NYSDHR dismissal. | State-law claims based on the same incident as NYSDHR denial. | Eleventh Amendment and exhaustion principles bar duplicative suit. | State-law claims dismissed with prejudice; no subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Ganim, 342 F.3d 105 (2d Cir.2003) (three-part test for First Amendment retaliation in public employment)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (determines whether speech addresses a matter of public concern)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech within official duties; public employee retaliation cases follow Garcetti framework)
- Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir.2004) (requires causal link in §1981 against individuals; personal involvement necessary)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (claims must be plausible on their face; pleading standard after Twombly)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; bars bare recitals of the elements)