Green v. Dep't of Educ.
16 F.4th 1070
| 2d Cir. | 2021Background
- Rupert Green, a tenured African‑American NYC public school teacher, was terminated after alleged harassing emails and sued the DOE and his union (UFT).
- He pleaded § 1983 claims: First Amendment retaliation, procedural due process, and equal protection (race and NYC-vs-rest‑of‑state), plus a duty‑of‑fair‑representation (DFR) claim against the UFT under the NLRA/LRMA.
- The district court dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim and dismissed the DFR claim for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over state‑law claims.
- On appeal (pro se), Green abandoned several issues by not addressing them in his opening brief (including a “stigma‑plus” due‑process theory and state‑law claims).
- The Second Circuit affirmed: it held the § 1983 claims were insufficiently pleaded (Monell/policy‑or‑custom and pleading defaults) and concluded the DFR claim should have been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because the NLRA does not cover public‑sector employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty of fair representation under NLRA | UFT breached duty in representing Green | NLRA does not reach public employers/public‑sector employees (DOE is a political subdivision) | DFR claim dismissed; court clarifies dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) (fails to state a claim) |
| First Amendment retaliation (§ 1983) | DOE/UFT retaliated against Green for protected speech | Pleadings fail to allege a municipal policy or custom causing retaliation | Dismissed for failure to state a claim (no plausible Monell policy/custom) |
| Procedural due process (§ 1983) | Disciplinary process deprived Green of constitutional protections (bias, improper probable‑cause procedure) | Green received notice; state procedures (and post‑deprivation remedies) satisfy due process | Dismissed — pretermination notice given; post‑deprivation state remedies adequate (Loudermill standard met) |
| Equal protection (§ 1983) | Disparate treatment of Black teachers and different procedures for NYC teachers | Allegations are conclusory; NYC/rest‑of‑state distinction is rationally related to legitimate administrative interests | Dismissed — race/customal allegations insufficient; NYC v. rest classification reviewed under rational basis and upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (establishes municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir.) (general/conclusory municipal allegations insufficient to plead a Monell claim)
- Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (pretermination notice requirement for tenured public employees)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (distinction between jurisdictional limits and merits elements)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (statutory limits not labeled jurisdictional should be treated as merits elements)
- Ford v. D.C. 37 Union Local 1549, 579 F.3d 187 (2d Cir.) (public employees not covered by NLRA)