Gentile v. Nulty
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20537
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Gentile, a Town police officer since 1989, developed PTSD after a 1993 gun battle and received 207-c disability benefits.
- He was absent from work for over eight years after a 1995 incident and later remained on disability while continuing to receive §207-c benefits.
- Town terminated Gentile under Civil Service Law §71 in September 2004 for a leave of absence; by May 2005 the Town ceased 207-c eligibility, though Gentile disputes this cessation.
- Gentile had prior federal litigation against the Town (1996 and 1999) with mixed outcomes, including a prior favorable jury verdict and a later settled case.
- Judge Robinson had previously sustained Gentile’s equal protection claim against the Town and a NY Public Health Law §18 claim; the case was transferred to this court and subjected to summary judgment.
- The court grants summary judgment for defendants on Gentile’s federal equal protection claim, leaving state-law claims to be dismissed under supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public-employee class-of-one claims survive Engquist. | Gentile asserts a class-of-one claim despite Engquist. | Engquist bars class-of-one in public employment. | Engquist controls; claim fails. |
| Whether Gentile was similarly situated to others for selective enforcement. | Gentile was treated differently from similarly situated officers. | No sufficiently similar comparators identified. | No genuine issue as to similarly situated; claim fails. |
| Whether retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights supports equal protection claim. | Retaliation for filing federal lawsuits supports equal protection. | First Amendment claims dismissed; equal protection claim derivative. | Dependent equal protection claim fails; coalesces with dismissed First Amendment claims. |
| Whether the state-law claim under NY Public Health Law § 18 should be heard. | Declined supplemental jurisdiction; state-law claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (public employment class-of-one liability barred)
- Analytical Diagnostic Labs, Inc. v. Kusel, 626 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) (class-of-one framework; requires identical treatment analysis)
- Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778 (2d Cir. 2007) (selective enforcement standard; impermissible considerations)
- Kamholtz v. Yates County, 350 Fed.Appx. 589 (2d Cir. 2009) (similarly situated standard; public-employee context debated)
- Yajure v. DiMarzo, 130 F. Supp. 2d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (standard for determining whether persons are similarly situated)
- Ruston v. Town Bd. for Town of Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2010) (class-of-one analysis; stringent similarity requirement)
- Goldfarb v. Town of West Hartford, 474 F. Supp. 2d 356 (D. Conn. 2007) (sine qua non of selective enforcement claim)