Morris v. New York State Police
268 F. Supp. 3d 342
N.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Morris, Lee, and Rafferty, forensic scientists, sue NY State Police and officials over DNA analysis practices and alleged discriminatory conduct.
- CPI method allegedly had subjective elements; TrueAllele was introduced to address criticisms, with plaintiffs advocating its adoption.
- Leadership shifts occurred around 2013-2014, with Pizziketti reporting to Wickenheiser; plaintiffs allege mistreatment and improper testimony by Pizziketti.
- Between 2013-2014, TrueAllele implementation training occurred for 37 scientists; plaintiffs allege widespread collaboration during training.
- In late 2014, plaintiffs were reassigned to the State Police Academy; February 2015 Notices of Discipline led to suspensions and Morris’s termination; Lee and Rafferty faced post-reinstatement discipline.
- EEOC charges were filed in October 2015; the federal suit followed in February 2016; in 2016-2017 further conduct included a public letter by Superintendent D’Amico.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity and §1983 claims | §1983 claims against State Police/officials in official capacity survive. | State immunity bars §1983 claims against State Police and official-capacity defendants. | §1983 claims against State Police and officials in official capacity dismissed. |
| First Amendment retaliation | Objections to CPI/TrueAllele misuse and external reporting harmed plaintiffs, causing retaliation. | Alleged actions not causally linked or not adverse actions under standard. | Claims survive at this stage as protected speech linked to public concerns and citizen speech. |
| Title VII discrimination and statute of limitations | Timely claims based on ongoing discrimination including post-2014 conduct; continuing violation theory may apply. | Most discriminatory acts are time-barred as discrete incidents; continuing violation doctrine does not apply to these acts. | Many claims dismissed as time-barred; some claims remain for discovery for retaliation-related Title VII issues. |
| Hostile work environment and equal protection | Campaign of mistreatment constitutes hostile environment and gender-based discrimination. | Insufficiently connected to protected characteristic; many acts are not sufficiently severe or pervasive. | Hostile environment and related §1983/NYSHRL claims dismissed for lack of proven causal link to protected class. |
| Defamation and privilege defenses | Statements by supervisors about cheating were defamatory and not protected by privilege. | Some statements protected by common interest privilege or made in the course of investigations. | Defamation claims survive to discovery against certain defendants; some privilege defenses prevail for another. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech by public employees cases; speech as citizen vs. employee)
- Morgan v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts and continuing violation timing framework)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (continuing violation and timely filing; 300-day limitations)
- Baroor v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 362 Fed.Appx. 157 (2d Cir. 2010) (hostile environment pleading standards; continuing violation context)