986 F. Supp. 2d 257
W.D.N.Y.2013Background
- In 2007 Murphy, a tenured RCSD teacher, supervised a robotics program; robotics equipment went missing and police investigated. Murphy was arrested for grand larceny and later indicted on petit larceny; he was acquitted after a bench trial.
- A school-issued laptop allegedly containing pornographic images was recovered around the time of his arrest; RCSD brought §3020-a disciplinary charges based on both theft and the laptop images.
- After an 18‑day §3020-a hearing and expert testimony, the Hearing Officer dismissed/denied all charges but placed Murphy on interim leave at 80% pay pending resolution of the civil litigation.
- Murphy sued (amended complaint) raising claims including malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest, negligent hiring/supervision, IIED, due process, libel/slander, and §1983 civil‑rights/retaliation.
- RCSD and related defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed the entire amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution (state & §1983) | RCSD/City/Officers prosecuted Murphy without probable cause and with malice | Grand jury indictment creates a presumption of probable cause; Murphy did not show fraud/perjury/suppression to rebut it | Dismissed: indictment presumes probable cause and Murphy failed to overcome it |
| False arrest (state & §1983) | Arrest without probable cause violated Fourth Amendment | Probable cause (indictment) is an absolute defense | Dismissed: probable cause presumption unrebutted |
| Abuse of process | RCSD used §3020-a process to gain collateral advantage / retaliate | Alleged motive is insufficient; no post‑issuance perversion of process shown | Dismissed: no improper perversion of process alleged |
| Negligent hiring/training/supervision (RCSD/City/RPD) | Defendants negligently retained/supervised staff who caused harm | No evidence of prior notice of propensity, no custom/policy causing constitutional violation | Dismissed: no notice of propensity, no Monell evidence, no proximate causation |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Defendants’ conduct was outrageous and intended to cause severe distress | Conduct falls within ordinary tort/disciplinary context and is not sufficiently outrageous | Dismissed: conduct not extreme/outrageous as matter of law |
| Due process (procedural & substantive) | Suspension at 80% pay and §3020-a handling violated due process | Murphy received notice, an 18‑day hearing, and written decision; no conscience‑shocking conduct | Dismissed: procedural and substantive due process claims fail |
| Defamation (libel & slander) | Statements by Superintendent, Principal, others defamed Murphy | Some statements absolutely privileged; plaintiff abandoned some claims by not opposing | Dismissed: absolute privilege for Superintendent; other claims abandoned |
| §1983 / First Amendment retaliation | Charges and discipline were retaliatory for Murphy’s whistleblowing | No particularized allegations of protected speech timing; RCSD would have pursued charges regardless | Dismissed: no protected‑speech causal link and defendants show they would have acted anyway |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovejoy-Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., 263 F.3d 208 (2d Cir.) (summary judgment standard and viewing evidence for nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (summary judgment/genuine issue standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S.) (summary judgment burdens)
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (U.S.) (validity of arrest independent of guilt)
- Janetka v. Dabe, 892 F.2d 187 (2d Cir.) (malicious prosecution/analysis of related charges)
- Rothstein v. Corriere, 373 F.3d 275 (2d Cir.) (indictment presumption and requirement to show grand jury misconduct)
- Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78 (N.Y.) (elements to overcome grand jury presumption)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S.) (municipal liability under §1983)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S.) (public‑employee speech analysis)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S.) (defense that adverse action would have occurred absent protected speech)
- Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115 (N.Y.) (IIED high standard for outrageousness)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S.) (procedural due process for public employees)
- Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir.) (conscience‑shocking standard for substantive due process)