Grogan v. Blooming Grove Volunteer Ambulance Corps
768 F.3d 259
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Grogan, a certified EMT, joined BGVAC in 2001 and became Captain in 2007, supervising staff and reporting to the Board.
- BGVAC is a private nonprofit contracted by the Town of Blooming Grove to provide EMS and ambulance services, under a Town Law contract identifying BGVAC as an independent contractor.
- Town Law § 198(10-f) permits towns to contract for EMS but does not make contract performance an obligation or impose direct control over BGVAC’s operations or personnel decisions.
- Town arrangement includes annual $362,000 payment, town audit rights, and reporting requirements, but no Town appointment to BGVAC’s board or day-to-day personnel control.
- In May 2008 the Board charged Grogan with multiple violations and suspended her without a hearing; a hearing was promised but never held and Grogan was not reinstated.
- Grogan filed a § 1983 suit alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations due to retaliation and due process concerns; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on state-action grounds, which Grogan challenged on appeal.
- The court reviews state-action questions de novo, focusing on whether the challenged conduct is fairly attributable to the State, and applies public-function and entwinement tests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BGVAC’s disciplinary actions are state action under the public function theory | Grogan argues EMS/ambulance provision is a traditional public function | Ambulance services are not a traditionally exclusive public function | No state action under public function |
| Whether BGVAC’s actions are state action under the entwinement theory | Regulatory oversight and funding entangle Town with BGVAC’s management | Town lacks control over BGVAC’s governance or personnel decisions; contract labels independent contractor | No entwinement state action |
Key Cases Cited
- American Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1999) (state action requires a close nexus between private conduct and the State)
- Brentwood Academy v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288 (U.S. 2001) (entwinement/public-function tests for state action)
- Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1974) (private conduct may be state action if fairly attributable to the State)
- Horvath v. Westport Library Ass'n, 362 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2004) (control by government over internal management can show state action)
- Janusaitis v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Dep’t, 607 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1979) (fire protection as a public function relied on historic/state realities)
- Perez v. Sugarman, 499 F.2d 761 (2d Cir. 1974) (state may assume a public function under statute, depending on obligation/ultimate responsibility)
- Cranley v. Nat’l Life Ins. Co. of Vt., 318 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2003) (test for fair attribution of private conduct to state)
- Cooper v. U.S. Postal Serv., 577 F.3d 479 (2d Cir. 2009) (state action analysis in private party actions tied to government)