Ross v. Lichtenfeld
693 F.3d 300
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Ross, a payroll clerk typist hired in 1998, processed biweekly payrolls and verified pay accuracy.
- Between 2003 and 2006 she repeatedly reported pay irregularities and disbursement concerns to Superintendent Lichtenfeld.
- Notable incidents included Turner’s forged signature and subsequent board actions; Ross provided documentation and sought corrective action.
- In 2005 Gargano discovered Ross’s prior Putnam employment and undeclared records; this triggered further investigation.
- Ross was suspended in May 2006, wrote a Board letter in July alleging retaliation for reporting malfeasance, and was terminated after a disciplinary process; the district court later denied and then the appellate court reversed on First Amendment grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ross’s speech was protected by the First Amendment. | Ross spoke as a private citizen. | Ross spoke pursuant to her official duties as payroll clerk. | Ross’s speech was pursuant to official duties; not protected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech under official duties not protected)
- Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ., 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2010) (public employee can speak pursuant to official duties even if not required by job description)
- Anemone v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 629 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2011) (contextual factors determine “official duties” scope)
- Jackler v. Byrne, 658 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2011) (distinguishes cases where citizen speech applies from duty-bound reporting)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (public employee speech interests differ from general citizen speech)