Knight v. Nassau Cnty.
20-2760-cv
2d Cir.Jul 7, 2021Background:
- Randall Knight, a Nassau County probation officer, was terminated in June 2015 for "misconduct and behavior unbecoming of an officer" after (1) a combative interaction with Officer Judy Arroyo during a traffic stop and (2) an intimidating confrontation with coworker Martha Del Valle who reported the stop.
- Knight alleges Arroyo racially profiled him and that he had previously complained about racism to coworkers; he claims his protected speech led to retaliatory termination.
- Nassau County defended the termination as discipline for misconduct and cited nonretaliatory reasons; a Notice of Personnel Action (NOPA) approving termination was prepared before a June 28, 2015 termination meeting.
- Knight brought claims for First Amendment retaliation, retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and pre-termination due process violations; the District Court granted summary judgment for Nassau County.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo, affirmed the dismissal of all claims, and rejected Knight’s attempt to create a factual dispute via a post-deposition declaration.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation | Knight contends his statements about racism (donut-shop comments; remarks to supervisors) were protected speech and caused termination | Nassau says donut-shop comments never reached decisionmakers; remarks to supervisors were employee-position speech (not private-citizen speech) | Affirmed: donut-shop comments not shown to have been communicated to authority; remarks to supervisor were within job duties/defensive and not protected under Garcetti |
| §1981 retaliation | Knight argues anti-racism complaints were motive for adverse action | Nassau points to nonretaliatory basis for termination and shows NOPA predated some complaints | Affirmed: Knight failed to show but-for causation; no evidence comments motivated discipline and NOPA preceded some remarks |
| Procedural due process (pre-termination) | Knight argues the pre-termination opportunity was illusory because termination approval preceded the meeting | Nassau says Knight had a limited pre-termination chance to be heard and a full post-termination adversarial hearing | Affirmed: pre-termination opportunity was adequate given post-termination hearing; existence of NOPA before meeting did not render hearing inadequate |
| Evidentiary: post-deposition declaration | Knight used a post-deposition declaration to assert earlier complaints to supervisors | Nassau and the court treat the declaration as a sham affidavit contradicting deposition testimony | Affirmed: court declined to create a fact issue from contradictory declaration |
Key Cases Cited
- Montero v. City of Yonkers, 890 F.3d 386 (2d Cir. 2018) (elements for public-employee First Amendment retaliation)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech pursuant to job duties not protected)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (but-for causation required in retaliation claims)
- Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (2020) (but-for causation standard discussion)
- Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2001) (pre-termination process plus post-termination adversarial hearing satisfies due process)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (notice and limited opportunity to be heard pre-termination)
- Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerner, 416 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment and drawing inferences)