Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority
757 F.3d 31
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Scott Matusick (white) worked as a dispatcher for the Erie County Water Authority (ECWA); he was engaged to Anita Starks (African‑American). He alleges pervasive racial harassment at work directed at him for that interracial relationship and that the harassment contributed to disciplinary proceedings and his termination.
- Matusick was charged in a Section 75 disciplinary proceeding for sleeping on duty and failing to timely dispatch for reported water breaks (Oct. 1 and Oct. 20, 2005); an independent hearing officer found misconduct and recommended termination, which ECWA adopted; Matusick was terminated April 2006.
- At trial Matusick asserted state-law hostile work environment, disparate-treatment/termination, retaliation claims under New York Executive Law § 296, a § 1983 claim for interference with intimate association (First/14th Amendments), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jury found ECWA and several individuals liable on various claims and awarded back pay and punitive damages against individuals on § 1983 claims.
- District court denied various JMOL motions and instructed jury that the Section 75 recommendation did not bind it; defendants appealed claiming (inter alia) issue preclusion, improper exclusion/admission of Section 75 materials, insufficient evidence for liability, and qualified immunity for individual defendants on the § 1983 claim.
- Second Circuit: affirmed state-law discrimination verdicts and Monell § 1983 liability against ECWA; vacated individual liability on § 1983 (qualified immunity) and punitive damages against individuals; remanded limitedly to award nominal damages ($1) against ECWA and affirmed attorney’s fees award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preclusive effect of Section 75 hearing | Matusick argued the hearing did not resolve discrimination issues and did not preclude jury from deciding motives for termination | Defendants argued the adopted Section 75 recommendation and findings preclude relitigation and support legitimacy of termination | Hearing officer’s factual findings that Matusick committed the charged misconduct are preclusive; the hearing did not resolve discriminatory‑motive issues; district court’s failure to instruct on limited preclusive effect was error but harmless here |
| Admissibility/weight of Section 75 report | Matusick argued the report was not dispositive of discriminatory motive and limiting instruction was proper | Defendants sought admission/persuasion instruction that the hearing recommendation supports legitimate reason for termination | Court’s evidentiary and charge rulings possibly erroneous but not prejudicial given strong documentary and testimonial proof of misconduct; errors deemed harmless |
| Sufficiency of evidence for state wrongful-termination and aider/abettor liability | Matusick relied on pervasive racist harassment, knowledge by supervisors, and differential discipline to infer discriminatory motivation and ECWA custom/policy; pointed to comparators | Defendants argued lack of similarly situated comparators, different disciplinary histories, and no evidence decision‑makers knew of the relationship | Reasonable jury could find ECWA liable and that Kuryak and Lisinski aided/abetted; comparators need not be identical; verdict affirmed |
| § 1983 (intimate association) and qualified immunity | Matusick claimed his betrothal to Starks implicated a First Amendment intimate‑association right and defendants’ conduct penalized that relationship | Defendants argued the intimate‑association right was not clearly established and thus individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Court found the betrothal relationship was constitutionally protected and defendants’ conduct violated that right, but the specific right was not clearly established in 2004–2005; individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity; Monell liability against ECWA sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal § 1983 liability requires a policy, custom, or practice)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (qualified immunity and supervisory liability principles)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (First Amendment right of intimate association; factors to assess intimacy)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two‑step inquiry)
- Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (municipalities are not entitled to qualified immunity)
- Kosmynka v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 462 F.3d 74 (appellate review view facts in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Burkybile v. Bd. of Educ. of Hastings‑On‑Hudson, 411 F.3d 306 (preclusive effect of administrative fact‑finding under New York law)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (harmless‑error standard requiring assessment of probable effect of error)