Raspardo v. Carlone
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19010
2d Cir.2014Background
- Three female NBPD officers (Spring, Raspardo, Russell) sued the City, NBPD, the union, and five supervisory officers alleging sex-based hostile work environment and disparate treatment under § 1983 and other laws; this appeal concerns only individual defendants’ qualified immunity on § 1983 claims.
- Sergeant John Carlone (direct supervisor) was accused by Raspardo and Russell of repeated sexualized comments, unwanted physical contact, and one forced sexual act (Russell); Spring reported fewer and more ambiguous incidents. Carlone was later investigated, demoted, and retired.
- Other defendants (Chief Gagliardi, Paventi, Steck, Panetta) are alleged to have created/condoned a hostile environment by making sexualized nicknames/comments, disciplining the women more harshly (esp. after vehicle accidents), and inadequately supervising/investigating Carlone.
- District court denied qualified immunity to the individual defendants; defendants appealed. The Second Circuit reviews de novo on plaintiffs’ version of the facts where appropriate and applies the two-prong qualified immunity test.
- Court’s disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded — Carlone is entitled to qualified immunity as to Spring but not as to Raspardo; the other four individual defendants (Gagliardi, Paventi, Steck, Panetta) are entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 hostile work environment and disparate treatment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carlone’s conduct created a § 1983 hostile work environment | Raspardo/Russell/Spring: repeated sexual comments, unwanted touching, sexualized remarks made workplace abusive | Carlone: conduct was isolated, not severe or pervasive; qualified immunity applies | For Spring: no hostile environment as a matter of law (qualified immunity). For Raspardo: facts (multiple comments, attempted massage, suggestive photo, >10 comments) could permit a jury finding; no qualified immunity. |
| Whether other supervisors (Gagliardi, Paventi, Steck, Panetta) are individually liable for hostile work environment | Plaintiffs: supervisors made sexualized remarks, disciplined women more harshly, delayed/inadequate investigation of Carlone, grossly negligent supervision | Defendants: actions were either non-sex-based, too isolated/minor, or reasonable disciplinary/supervisory responses; no personal unconstitutional acts; qualified immunity applies | Held: supervisors did not personally commit sufficiently sex-based, severe, or pervasive acts nor show grossly negligent supervision; qualified immunity granted to all four as to hostile work environment claims. |
| Whether supervisors are liable under supervisory-liability theory for failing to prevent/stop Carlone | Plaintiffs: prior complaints and investigations put supervisors on notice and they failed to act, causing harm | Defendants: prior incidents were not sufficiently similar/severe to put supervisors on notice; they took remedial steps when informed | Held: Gagliardi’s prior knowledge and response (investigation, demotion, referral to prosecutor) do not constitute gross negligence as a matter of law; qualified immunity applies. |
| Whether plaintiffs proved disparate treatment under § 1983 (e.g., vehicle privileges, beat assignments, minor discipline) | Plaintiffs: women were disciplined more harshly than male officers (loss of driving privileges, walking beats, write-ups) | Defendants: discipline was for legitimate reasons; plaintiffs failed to identify similarly situated male comparators; many alleged acts are not materially adverse | Held: Most alleged actions are not materially adverse; where adverse (driving privileges) plaintiffs failed to identify adequate comparators; disparate treatment claims fail and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Poe v. Leonard, 282 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2002) (de novo review of qualified immunity denial; supervisory liability discussion)
- Jemmott v. Coughlin, 85 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) (individual defendants liable where each defendant’s conduct could be sufficiently severe and pervasive)
- Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (Title VII hostile-work-environment claims actionable under § 1983; supervisor liability principles)
- Demoret v. Zegarelli, 451 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2006) (distinguishing employer Title VII frameworks from § 1983 personal-liability requirements)
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002) (hostile work environment standard: severe or pervasive test; totality of circumstances)
- Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001) (multiple instances of vulgar conduct can establish hostile work environment)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (qualified immunity two-prong analysis; violation and clearly established law)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (courts may address either prong of qualified immunity first)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (supervisory liability requires personal involvement; no respondeat superior)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (appellate courts may resolve fact-bound qualified immunity questions when viewing the record in plaintiff’s favor)