Santiago v. New York & New Jersey Port Authority, 687 F. App'x 146

Enid Santiago, a probationary Port Authority police officer, filed a handwritten report after an over-height truck incident in which another employee (Noa) interfered; she also completed the required motor vehicle accident report.
A six-month internal investigation found Santiago responsible for the accident and concluded she was dishonest in her statements; her probationary employment was terminated one day before it ended.
Santiago sued the Port Authority and individual employees alleging First Amendment retaliation (among other constitutional claims).
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding Santiago’s handwritten report was made pursuant to her official duties and thus not protected by the First Amendment under Garcetti.
Santiago filed her notice of appeal one day late; the district court granted an extension under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A) finding excusable neglect. The Third Circuit reviewed that ruling for abuse of discretion and found no abuse.
On the merits the Third Circuit affirmed: Santiago’s internal safety report was within her ordinary job duties and therefore not protected speech under Garcetti.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction — late notice of appeal	Counsel’s secretary miscalculated deadline by one day; motion for extension timely and excusable	Appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely notice	District court did not abuse discretion granting extension; appellate jurisdiction exists
Whether handwritten report is protected First Amendment speech	Report concerned public safety and was whistleblowing; Santiago spoke as a citizen, not pursuant to duties	Report was an internal communication made pursuant to officer duties and thus unprotected under Garcetti	Report was within Santiago’s ordinary job duties; not protected; summary judgment for defendants affirmed

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (statements made pursuant to official duties are not protected by the First Amendment)
Pioneer Invs. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (factors for excusable neglect)
Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d 231 (police reports up the chain of command fall within job duties)
Dougherty v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 772 F.3d 979 (practical inquiry whether speech was within job duties)
Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (Garcetti framework as applied by Third Circuit)
Flora v. County of Luzerne, 776 F.3d 169 (scope of job duties and citizen speech analysis)
Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (sworn testimony outside official duties may be protected)