McNamara v. The City of Long Beach, 2:16-cv-01205

Background

McNamara, a paid Long Beach firefighter and secretary of the local firefighters' union (LBPFA), published union-related material and created a website criticizing aspects of the volunteer fire department (LBVFD).
After videotaping an LBVFD response and publishing materials, McNamara was initially excluded from, then later invited to, an official Awards Dinner where he received an award; shortly after, he was assaulted by LBVFD members at the event and later at an after-party at Station 2, where he wore a digital recorder.
McNamara reported the assaults; a volunteer filed a Workplace Violence complaint against him; municipal officials (including Kemins and Schnirman) subsequently brought multiple disciplinary charges, suspended him, and later terminated him following a hearing presided over by Schnirman.
McNamara sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation for his protected speech and union activities; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The defendants argued, inter alia, that an independent hearing outcome (and the Collins presumption) defeats causation, and that Schnirman and Kemins enjoy absolute or qualified immunity; the court denied the motion to dismiss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McNamara plausibly alleged First Amendment retaliation (protected activity, causation, chilling)	McNamara alleges protected union speech and related conduct; disciplinary actions and termination were retaliatory	Defendants contend McNamara fails to plead causal link and that independent hearing undercuts causation	Court held complaint plausibly alleges retaliation; declined to apply Collins presumption at motion to dismiss stage
Whether Collins presumption (attenuation by independent tribunal) defeats causal link at pleading stage	Collins should not bar McNamara because facts plausibly show retaliation and causation	Defendants invoke Collins to argue the hearing decision severs causation	Court rejected applying Collins on motion to dismiss; Collins is a summary-judgment context tool and not controlling here
Whether Schnirman is entitled to absolute immunity for acting as hearing officer	McNamara argues Schnirman’s alleged retaliatory conduct is not entitled to absolute immunity	Defendants claim quasi-judicial role warrants absolute immunity	Court found defendants cited no authority extending absolute immunity to Schnirman in this context and denied dismissal on that ground
Whether Schnirman and Kemins are entitled to qualified immunity	McNamara alleges factual disputes showing retaliatory intent that would violate clearly established rights	Defendants argue it was objectively reasonable to pursue disciplinary actions and preside over hearing, so qualified immunity applies	Court held factual disputes preclude deciding qualified immunity at pleading stage and denied dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Faber v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 648 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2011) (pleading-stage standard; draw all reasonable inferences for plaintiff)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual allegations supporting legal conclusions)
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (application of Iqbal/Twombly in Second Circuit)
Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim)
Collins v. New York City Transit Authority, 305 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2002) (independent tribunal may attenuate causation at summary-judgment stage)
Austern v. Chicago Board of Options Exchange, Inc., 898 F.2d 882 (2d Cir. 1990) (absolute immunity historically applied to judges and some quasi-judicial actors)
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2010) (qualified immunity doctrine standards)
In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation, 502 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2007) (pleading standards and plausibility inquiry)