Campanella v. County of Monroe, 853 F. Supp. 2d 364

Plaintiffs Charles and Deborah Campanella sue Monroe County, MCSO, Sheriff O’Flynn, Undersheriff Caiola, Deputy Scott, and Lt. Tomassetti under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation against Campanella tied to Deborah’s employment with Greene/Leader and related internal MCSO actions.
Deborah Campanella’s employment with Leader Security Services (Daniel Greene) during a Monroe County sheriff election cycle is central to alleged retaliatory actions against Campanella (reassignments, program removals, and MOR).
Internal MCSO investigation led to a May 2009 memorandum of record (MOR) charging Campanella with gossip, conduct unbecoming, and truthfulness, allegedly reflecting improper procedures.
Allegations include multiple reassignments, loss of overtime and earnings, and a 2011 arbitration decision denying seniority-based treatment for a firearms position.
Plaintiffs also plead defamation based on the MOR and seek attorney’s fees under § 1988; defendants move for judgment on the pleadings and plaintiffs cross-move for fees.
Court grants in part and denies in part: most claims against County/MCSO dismissed; First Amendment retaliation survives as to certain actions; procedural due process and negligent training claims dismissed; attorney’s fees denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Defamation privilege and malice	Campanella claims MOR contains false statements; common-interest privilege applies	Statements protected by common-interest privilege; no malice shown	Defamation claims dismissed except to extent supported by MOR statements
First Amendment retaliation against Campanella	Actions were motivated by Deborah’s Leader employment and discussions about DiPonzio/Robutrad	Need plausible, non-conclusory facts showing retaliation and public-concern speech	Partially sustained: dismissal of some DiPonzio-related speech; others viable against O’Flynn, Scott, Tomassetti; Monell claims against County/MCSO dismissed
Public-employee speech on a matter of public concern	Robutrad/Leader-related discussions relate to public concerns	Internal personnel matter; not public concern	Some Robutrad-related statements found to touch public concern; others not; claims proceed accordingly
Due process and stigma-plus theory	Reassignments and MOR deprived Campanella of property/defamed him	No protected property interest; grievance/arbitration provided process	Due process claims dismissed; no stigma-plus showing sufficient for substantive due process
Negligent hiring/training/supervision	County/MCSO failed to train supervising personnel	Conclusive failure-to-train allegations insufficient	Dismissed; no Monell/municipal liability shown against County or MCSO

Albert v. Loksen, 239 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2001) (defamation privilege within common-interest framework; matters involving performance evaluations may be privileged)
Foster v. Churchill, 87 N.Y.2d 744 (N.Y. 1996) (common-interest privilege; malice defeats privilege)
Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429 (N.Y. 1992) (qualified privilege can be overcome by showing malice)
Cobb v. Pozzi, 363 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2004) (retaliation standard for public-employee speech claims; causal analysis after plaintiff shows protected conduct and adverse action)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (test for whether speech addresses a matter of public concern)
Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (local government liability for unconstitutional acts by employees requires policy/custom)
Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Anza, 652 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2011) (pleading for plausibility; discovery may reveal actionable conduct)
L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419 (2d Cir. 2011) (pleading standard; context-specific plausibility assessment)
Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2011) (public concern analysis; content, form, and context matter)
Reuland v. Hynes, 460 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2006) (speech related to public concern; private context does not negate public-interest)