Singer v. Ferro
711 F.3d 334
2d Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Singer, Decker, and Nollner, UCJ employees, allege retaliation by supervisors Ferro, Becker, and county officials for a parody about jail corruption.
- Singer created an Absolut Corruption parody on his work computer in September 2008, depicting UCJ officials and intended as a political statement.
- Parody was shown to five coworkers, then discarded; it circulated to depicted individuals without Singer’s further dissemination plans.
- Defendants allegedly retaliated by reassigning Singer to transports and by adverse actions toward Decker and Nollner, including SERT leadership changes.
- Discovery revealed a tape recording of a 2008 meeting; Singer faced disciplinary proceedings under New York Civil Service Law § 75.
- District court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding no speech on a matter of public concern and thus no First Amendment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parody as matter of public concern | Singer's parody concerned public corruption. | Parody addressed internal employment matters, not public concern. | No; parody not on public concern. |
| Expressive association claim viability | Decker and Nollner associating with Singer protected. | Association did not touch on public concern. | No; not protected in this context. |
| Retaliation for filing suit/public petition | Defendants retaliated for filing suit and First Amendment speech. | Actions not tied to public-concern speech. | No; conduct not on public concern. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech must be as a citizen on a matter of public concern)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (content, form, context determine public concern; Pickering balancing)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (debate on public issues should be uninhibited and robust)
- Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 131 S. Ct. 2488 (S. Ct. 2011) (whether petition relates to public concern depends on content and context)
- Lopez v. Lewis?, 165 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 1999) (public employee speech addressed to public concerns subject to balancing)
- Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (lawsuit not on public concern when seeking personal relief)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (analysis of public-concern speech by public employees)