Ricciuti v. Gyzenis
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148748
| D. Conn. | 2011Background
- Ricciuti, a Madison Police Department officer since Jan 2008, distributed a matrix and related materials alleging MPD mismanagement of overtime and budgets.
- Matrix was created largely on Ricciuti’s own time; she shared it with colleagues, family, a town official, and a concerned citizen, and publicized public-leaning concerns about spending.
- Internal affairs opened in March 2009; in May 2009 Ricciuti was given a Probationary Performance Plan requiring, among other things, a psychiatric evaluation and cessation of certain criticisms.
- Ricciuti allegedly refused to discuss or sign the plan; May 8, 2009 the Police Commission voted to terminate her probationary employment.
- Defendants argued her speech was unprotected employee speech or justified by discipline; Ricciuti contends she spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern.
- Court concluded at summary judgment that Ricciuti’s speech was protected, that the legality of the actions and the defenses (Mt. Healthy, Pickering) are fact-dependent, and denied summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Ricciuti’s speech protected as citizen speech? | Ricciuti spoke as a citizen on public concerns about MPD spending. | Speech was made in the course of employment and not as a citizen. | Yes; speech protected as citizen speech on public concern. |
| Did protected speech cause the termination? | Matrix dissemination and speech triggered IA, performance plan, and termination. | Termination could be due to insubordination or unrelated grounds, not protected speech. | Material dispute; causation is trial-bound. |
| Mt. Healthy defense viability | Would have fired Ricciuti anyway only if non-retaliatory grounds shown by record. | May rely on May 7 meeting conduct as non-retaliatory basis. | Not resolved; jury must decide if same action would occur absent speech. |
| Pickering balancing applicability | Speech value outweighed any disruption; disclosure served public interest. | Speech was disruptive and outweighed by department efficiency concerns. | Fact-intensive; jury to determine value vs disruption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech may be protected when not pursuant to official duties)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (public employees may speak on matters of public concern)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing of speech value against disruption)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1977) (shift burden to determine if action would have occurred absent protected speech)
- Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ., 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2010) (expands Garcetti framework for employee speech scope)
- Jackler v. Byrne, 658 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2011) (clarifies clearly established standard for citizen speech protection)
- Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2011) (two-part approach to qualified immunity in First Amendment retaliation)
- Drolett v. DeMarco, 382 F. App’x 7 (2d Cir. 2010) (unpublished; discussed on qualified immunity timing)
- Sousa v. Roque, 578 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2009) (holistic content/form/context approach to public concern)