806 F. Supp. 2d 594
E.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Reed was a volunteer Medford Fire Department member who was terminated for alleged sexual harassment following a February 2008 incident and related proceedings.
- The Department conducted a February 17, 2008 interview; Reed denied admissions and contested the accusations.
- A March 7, 2008 hearing process proceeded, but the Department voted to withdraw the hearing and found Reed guilty, prompting termination.
- Reed sought records under FOIL and later challenged the termination via Article 78; Farneti, J.S.C., granted the Article 78 petition in Reed I, ordering a hearing under GML § 209-l and the by-laws within 60 days.
- Morrissey later served Reed with a December 9, 2009 Notice and hearing notice; Reed and his attorney did not attend the December 9, 2009 hearing.
- Reed then filed suit in February 2010 asserting § 1983 claims, state tort claims, and FOIA/FOIL-related claims against the Department, Board, Rivera, Pinto, and Doe defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reed's state law tort claims are barred | Reed did not file a notice of claim; state claims should survive due to due process concerns. | No notice of claim; official-capacity claims are barred; time limits and derivative losses also bar claims. | Granted summary judgment for Defendants on state law claims. |
| Whether Lisa Reed's loss of consortium claim survives | Loss of consortium derives from Reed's underlying torts and should survive if tort claims proceed. | Derivative and improper under §1983; dismissal appropriate if underlying torts dismissed. | Dismissed Lisa Reed's loss of consortium claim. |
| Whether Reed's FOIA/FOIL claims survive | Defendants violated FOIA/FOIL by denying access to March 7, 2008 Minutes and failure to provide attorney. | FOIL claim moot by Reed I; federal FOIA does not apply to state agencies; new argument lacks merit. | Dismissed FOIA/FOIL claims; FOIL-related argument in federal suit deemed meritless; potential Article 78 route discussed but no federal claim remains. |
| Whether Rivera and Pinto face §1983 liability | Rivera/Pinto were involved in termination decisions; possible personal involvement. | They were not on the December 9, 2009 decision-making body and affidavits deny personal involvement. | Dismissed §1983 claims against Rivera and Pinto. |
| Whether Reed's §1983 due process claim regarding December 9, 2009 hearing survives | Pre-deprivation notice and process were constitutionally inadequate; Article 78 not a complete substitute for pre-termination process. | Post-deprivation remedy via Article 78 suffices; pre-deprivation hearing not required where established state procedures exist and remedies are available. | Issues of notice fact-pattern preclude summary judgment; but overall §1983 claim is dismissed for other defects; however, partial denial on notice aspect remains appropriate for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Finley v. Giacobbe, 79 F.3d 1285 (2d Cir. 1996) (pre-deprivation vs post-deprivation considerations in public employment disputes)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (random and unauthorized acts and post-deprivation remedies)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1990) (due process and state procedure in deprivation of liberty interests)
- Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (pre-termination minimal hearing required for protected employment interest)
- Rivera-Powell v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2006) (established state procedure vs random acts; pre-deprivation hearing considerations)
- HANAC v. City of New York, 101 F.3d 877 (2d Cir. 1996) (post-deprivation remedies and due process; required showing of established procedures)
- Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2001) (pretermination notice and post-deprivation remedies in due process analysis)
- McDarby v. Dinkins, 907 F.2d 1334 (2d Cir. 1990) (Article 78 as a post-deprivation remedy and its relation to §1983 claims)
- Weigner v. City of New York, 852 F.2d 646 (2d Cir. 1988) (adequacy of notice and due process frameworks in municipal actions)
- Todaro v. Norat, 112 F.3d 598 (2d Cir. 1997) (pre-deprivation notice and Loudermill requirements)