MacFall v. City of Rochester, 746 F. Supp. 2d 474

Background

On June 1, 2007, two groups clashed near South Goodman and Harvard Streets in Rochester, and four RPD officers responded.
Initial response involved separating combatants with no immediate arrests, but the first group allegedly refused to disperse and insulted officers, leading to four suspensions later.
The Rochester Police Department’s Professional Standards Section began an internal investigation into officer conduct and separately a criminal investigation into the incident.
In September 2007, Chief Moore announced the internal investigation findings; the four officers were suspended with pay and later charged with internal misconduct.
In October 2007, a separate criminal investigation concluded with no misconduct or criminal charges; the District Attorney announced no basis for criminal charges.
From December 2007 onward, the officers were offered unpaid suspensions in exchange for pleading guilty to internal charges; all four refused and maintained innocence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs had a protected property interest entitling due process	MacFall et al. argue CBA-created benefits imply entitlement.	Defendants contend no due process property interest in overtime/out-of-title work.	No protected property interest found; CBA does not create entitlements triggering due process.
Whether procedural due process was satisfied given notice and opportunity to be heard	Plaintiffs claim delay and ongoing charges violate due process.	Disciplinary process allowed defense, with post-charge hearing and paid suspension during proceedings.	Plaintiffs received constitutionally adequate process; delay weighed against private interest and consent.
Whether substantive due process supports plaintiffs’ claims	Defendants’ conduct was arbitrary and outrageous.	No conduct rising to the level of substantive due process violation.	No viable substantive due process claim; conduct not sufficiently shocking.
Whether plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation claim survives	Speech (pleas, actions, and suit) protected and retaliatory actions followed.	Speech at issue was not citizen speech on a matter of public concern; not protected.	No First Amendment retaliation; speech in question did not address a public concern and was as officers, not citizens.
Whether a § 1983 negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim can proceed without underlying constitutional violation	City’s training/supervision negligence supports § 1983 claim.	Without a constitutional violation, § 1983 negligent hiring/training claims fail.	Dismissed; no underlying constitutional violation established.

Key Cases Cited

Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (foundation for notice and hearing in due process)
Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (state law may create property rights; federal due process decides protection)
Danese v. Knox, 827 F. Supp. 185 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (CBA alone not necessarily create protected property interest)
Ezekwo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775 (2d Cir. 1991) (collective bargaining may create protected rights; not all benefits are protected)
Weg v. Macchiarola, 729 F. Supp. 328 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (post-suspension hearing opportunities; suspension with pay not a due process violation)
Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (speech must address public concern; personal grievances not protected)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech made as part of official duties is not protected)
Spencer v. Holley Central School Dist., 734 F. Supp. 2d 316 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (relevance of public concern in speech cases)
Henneberger v. County of Nassau, 465 F. Supp. 2d 176 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (contract-based benefits do not automatically create due process rights)
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (due process requires notice and a hearing before deprivation of significant interests)