Raymond Smith v. County of Suffolk
776 F.3d 114
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Raymond Smith, a Suffolk County Police lieutenant (1981–2008), used a Department computer to email media (Newsday, CNN) from 2004–2007, signing some messages with his official title and criticizing Department conduct and policies.
- Prior to the media emails, Smith had prior warnings for unauthorized computer modifications and non-work uses (1997, 2000, 2006).
- A forensic exam in 2007 (prompted by Smith’s tardy DMV hearing appearance) discovered emails to media and others; internal memoranda characterized some messages as tending to "bring discredit" to the Department.
- In Jan–Feb 2008 Smith was transferred to administrative duties (no computer, pay cut), charged with misconduct (initial charges related to media emails), suspended 30 days, and later faced additional charges; Smith retired voluntarily in April 2008.
- Smith sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First Amendment retaliation; the district court found he spoke on a matter of public concern and suffered adverse actions but granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding insufficient causal connection. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s citizen-media emails and related conduct constitute protected First Amendment activity | Smith: emails to Newsday/CNN were citizen speech on public concern and therefore protected | Defendants: did not contest protection on appeal | Held: Court accepts emails to Newsday/CNN as protected citizen speech (district court ruling not contested) |
| Whether Smith suffered adverse employment actions | Smith: transfer, pay reduction, suspension, disciplinary charges and forced retirement were adverse | Defendants: did not contest adverse nature on appeal | Held: Court accepts those actions as adverse (district court ruling not contested) |
| Whether there is a causal connection between Smith’s protected speech and adverse actions (prima facie retaliation) | Smith: direct evidence — charges and internal memos expressly reference speech/content; temporal proximity supports causation | Defendants: discipline was for longstanding computer misuse and other unprotected misconduct, not media speech | Held: Second Circuit held there is direct evidence that could support causation; plaintiff made out a prima facie case; district court erred in finding no causal connection |
| Whether defendants meet the Mount Healthy defense (would have disciplined absent protected speech) | Smith: defendants must show by preponderance they would have taken same actions for unprotected misconduct alone; record lacks such proof | Defendants: prior computer misuse and other charges justify transfer/suspension independent of speech | Held: Defendants failed to show they would have necessarily taken the same actions absent the protected speech; summary judgment on Mount Healthy inappropriate; factual issues for jury/remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. Morano, 497 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2007) (elements of public-employee First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (U.S. 2014) (citizen speech on public concern protected)
- Cioffi v. Averill Park Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 444 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2006) (protected speech must be a substantial motivating factor)
- Cobb v. Pozzi, 363 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2004) (direct and indirect proof of causation)
- Anemone v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 629 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2011) (defendant’s burden on defenses after prima facie case)
- Mount Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1977) (employer must prove by preponderance it would have acted absent protected conduct)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing government interest and employee speech)
- Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 1999) (Mount Healthy proof required at summary judgment)
- Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2011) (defendant must show it would have acted despite protected speech)
- Diesel v. Town of Lewisboro, 232 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2000) (employer’s justification must be specific and persuasive)
- Greenwich Citizens Comm., Inc. v. Counties of Warren & Washington Indus. Dev. Agency, 77 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 1996) (Mount Healthy framed as hypothetical whether same action would have occurred)