Catanzaro v. City of New York
486 F. App'x 899
2d Cir.2012Background
- Catanzaro and Fawzy claimed their First Amendment rights were violated after they spoke as DEP supervisors about designating DERTA employees as first-responders and obtaining benefits/training.
- Most complaints were internal to DEP/DERTA (October 2007, August 2008, January 2009).
- They also raised concerns with the DERTA union during 2007–2008 and with the City Council in 2007–2009 (one external contact via a City Council member).
- Fawzy alleged that he believed it would be illegal to command subordinates to perform tasks without designation; Catanzaro tied duties to first-responder designation and protections.
- Plaintiffs filed a PESH complaint in January–February 2009; the court treated this as an external assertion of concerns.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Second Circuit affirmed, applying the standard for First Amendment retaliation in the public employment context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether internal complaints were protected speech | Fawzy and Catanzaro spoke as citizens about job duties | Speech was made as employees during official duties | Internal speech fell within employee scope; not protected as citizen speech |
| Whether external complaints establish protection or causation | External complaints show protected speech and causal link | External complaints not shown to causally connect to actions | External complaints not shown to cause or substantially motivate adverse actions |
| Whether there is a causal connection between protected speech and adverse actions | Protected speech caused retaliation | No substantial evidence of causation; other factors present | No genuine issue of material fact on causation; no substantial motivating factor shown |
| Whether PESH complaint or City Council call established causation | PESH call and City Council contact show retaliation | Plaintiffs failed to prove awareness and causal link | Insufficient evidence of awareness/causation; no prima facie case for retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech made pursuant to official duties not protected)
- Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ., 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal employee speech consideration in retaliation)
- Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2011) (protected speech requires substantial motivating factor and causation)
- Jackler v. Byrne, 658 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2011) (law substantially determines employee vs. citizen speech)
- Dillon v. Morano, 497 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2007) (causation may be shown by temporal proximity)
- Gubitosa v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1998) (conduct and timing considerations in retaliation claims)