176 F. Supp. 3d 229
E.D.N.Y2016Background
- Rivers (maintenance worker) and Crenshaw (assistant housing manager) were Local 237 union members who helped form a dissident slate (Members for Change) opposing Union President Gregory Floyd and endorsed William Thompson for mayor; they allege NYCHA and Union retaliation for those activities.
- Rivers left NYCHA to work for the Union as a business agent (2006–Jan.2009); after he was terminated by Floyd he returned to NYCHA and was reassigned to less desirable locations, alleged to lack training, and suffered workplace injuries; he settled a 2009 administrative petition that resolved claims arising from his January 2009 assignment.
- Crenshaw became active with Members for Change in 2008–2009; she alleges increased workload, loss of supervisory authority, numerous counseling memoranda, and an April 2010 alleged sexual assault by supervisor Alexander; she took leave and was later terminated pursuant to NYCHA policy but returned and retired 2012–2014.
- Plaintiffs sued NYCHA, individual NYCHA managers, Local 237, and Union officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and conspiracy; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Court disposed of entity liability: Monell/agency deficiencies dismissed NYCHA and the Union as corporate defendants; court declined to treat the 2010 administrative withdrawal as an effective waiver of federal rights but held the 2009 stipulation precluded claims arising from matters addressed there.
- On the merits, the court applied the substantial-motivating-factor causation standard for First Amendment retaliation (not the Title VII "but-for" standard) and found Rivers failed to show actionable adverse actions or causation; Crenshaw survived summary judgment in part against individual defendants Walton and Alexander for loss of supervisory authority and a pattern of counseling memoranda.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did plaintiffs waive claims by withdrawing administrative petitions? | Withdrawal did not waive federal §1983 rights. | Union argued 2010 withdrawal barred claims; NYCHA relied on 2009 stipulation. | 2009 stipulation precluded claims arising from those matters; 2010 withdrawal insufficient to show waiver. |
| Are NYCHA and the Union liable as entity defendants under §1983 (Monell)? | Plaintiffs attributed systemic retaliation to entities. | Defendants said no final policymaker or policy shown. | Both NYCHA and the Union (entity) dismissed for lack of municipal/private-entity policy showing. |
| What causation standard applies to First Amendment retaliation? | Plaintiffs: substantial-motivating-factor. | Defendants: Nassar "but-for" standard should apply. | Court applied substantial-motivating-factor standard to §1983 First Amendment claims. |
| Did Rivers and Crenshaw show protected activity, adverse action, and causation? | Both: engaged in public-concern speech/association; suffered adverse actions tied to Union/NYCHA conduct. | Defendants: many acts not adverse, temporally/causally disconnected, or precluded; some allegations hearsay or unsupported. | Rivers: all claims dismissed for failure to prove adverse action/causation. Crenshaw: claims against Walton and Alexander survive (loss of supervisory authority and campaign of counseling memoranda); remaining claims and Union defendants dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zelnik v. Fashion Inst. of Tech., 464 F.3d 217 (2d Cir.) (adverse-action/retaliation standard; combination of minor incidents can be actionable)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden rules)
- Smith v. County of Suffolk, 776 F.3d 114 (2d Cir.) (First Amendment retaliation prima facie elements)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public-employee speech framework)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (public concern test for speech)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under §1983)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (speech/employee balancing test)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation/adverse-action principles)
- Clue v. Johnson, 179 F.3d 57 (2d Cir.) (union faction speech may be public concern when criticizing management)
- Anemone v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 629 F.3d 97 (2d Cir.) (employer can avoid liability if it would have taken same action absent protected speech)