Mancuso v. Village of Pelham
7:15-cv-07895
| S.D.N.Y. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Mancuso was a probationary firefighter for the Village of Pelham; he completed the Fire Academy and in‑house training but was terminated during probation in September 2014.
- Mancuso alleges supervisors (Stone, Lieutenants) fabricated negative evaluations and falsely reported accidents, leading to an extension of probation and eventual termination; he compares his treatment to coworker Mullen.
- Civil service rules limited probation to 52 weeks and required one week’s written notice before termination; Mancuso contends his appointment date made him a non‑probationary employee when he was terminated.
- Mancuso pursued an Article 78 proceeding in New York state court challenging termination; the state court found Mancuso’s appointment effective September 23, 2013 and held he was a probationary (at‑will) employee when terminated.
- Mancuso filed this federal suit asserting § 1983 claims (failure to supervise, equal protection, procedural and substantive due process) and several state‑law claims; defendants moved to dismiss.
- The District Court dismissed all federal claims (Monell/failure to supervise; class‑of‑one and selective enforcement equal protection; procedural and substantive due process) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; judgment entered dismissing the action with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal liability (Monell/failure to supervise) | Village/officials failed to supervise, tolerated false evaluations causing deprivation of property/right | No municipal policy or custom alleged; isolated acts cannot establish Monell; no deliberate indifference shown | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead municipal policy/custom or deliberate indifference sufficient for Monell liability |
| Individual supervisory liability (Cassidy, Yamuder, Stone) | Supervisors personally involved by repeating or failing to correct false evaluations | Supervisors lack personal involvement or deliberate indifference necessary for § 1983 liability | Dismissed — no adequate allegations of personal involvement or gross negligence/deliberate indifference; claims against Cassidy abandoned |
| Equal protection — class‑of‑one | Mancuso alleged disparate, unjustified treatment compared to other firefighters (e.g., Mullen) | Engquist bars class‑of‑one claims by public employees; also insufficiently pleaded similarly situated comparators or malicious motive | Dismissed — class‑of‑one not available to public employees; selective‑enforcement claim fails for lack of similarly situated comparators and motive |
| Procedural due process | Mancuso had a property interest in continued employment and was denied due process | State court resolved start date; Mancuso was probationary (at‑will) when terminated; Article 78 provided adequate remedy | Dismissed — collateral estoppel applies to state court finding that Mancuso was probationary, so no protected property interest |
| Substantive due process | Fabrication of records and malice rises to conscience‑shocking conduct | Alleged harms are ordinary employment actions, not abuse of uniquely governmental power; duplicative of equal protection claim | Dismissed — duplicative of equal protection and not sufficiently egregious to shock the conscience |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and individual officer liability)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy/custom causing violation)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (class‑of‑one theory inapplicable in public employment)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (class‑of‑one formulation)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (substantive due process: conscience‑shocking standard)
- Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75 (2d Cir.) (fabrication claims and substantive due process limits)
- City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (single incident insufficient to establish municipal custom)
- Roe v. City of Waterbury, 542 F.3d 31 (Monell elements and causation)