Looney v. Black
702 F.3d 701
2d Cir.2012Background
- Patrick Looney served as Marlborough Building Official from 1994 to 2010; position defined by town Charter and state statutes with four-year terms and Board of Selectmen appointment; he was repeatedly appointed full-time with benefits and pension per town rules and a 2007 CBA recognizing full-time status.
- Looney’s 1994 appointment came with assurances of full-time employment and benefits; he was treated as full-time for years, including four renewals and benefits such as health, retirement, and leave.
- In 2009 Looney filed a grievance alleging First Amendment interference by supervisor Hughes; subsequent communications restricted his speech and the town threatened discipline.
- January 2010: town reduced Looney’s Building Official hours from full-time to 20 hours per week with no enhanced benefits; he notified intent to sue in June 2010.
- Looney filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process and First Amendment retaliation; district court denied and defendants appealed seeking qualified immunity; this court reversed-in-part and remanded for judgment for defendants on the due process and First Amendment issues.
- The appellate court held that Looney failed to allege a constitutionally protected property right in full-time employment and thus Black was entitled to qualified immunity for the procedural due process claim; also held Looney failed to allege his speech was made as a private citizen for First Amendment purposes, overturning the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process property right | Looney had a constitutionally protected full-time employment right | No written/explicit guarantee; only unilateral expectation | Not adequately alleged; no property right established |
| First Amendment private citizen speech | Looney spoke as private citizen on public concerns | Speech owed to official duties; not protected | Speech not adequately alleged as private citizen for protection |
| Qualified immunity viability | Defendants violated clearly established rights; immunity inappropriate | Rights not clearly established or actions reasonable | Majority: qualified immunity applies; DCs entitled to dismissal; Dissent argues not yet warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ezekwo v. NYC Health & Hosps. Corp., 940 F.2d 775 (2d Cir.1991) (property interest based on course of conduct and assurances)
- Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir.2002) (property interest in promotion based on CBA; duties and terms implied by conduct)
- Harhay v. Town of Ellington Board of Education, 323 F.3d 206 (2d Cir.2003) (reappointment rights under CBA; significant interest in continued employment)
- Narumanchi v. Bd. of Trs. of Conn. State Univ., 850 F.2d 70 (2d Cir.1988) (property interest in employment; due process safeguards when suspended/reduced)
- Roth v. State Univ., 408 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court, 1972) (property interests created by state law; entitlement vs unilateral expectation)