Spence v. New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets, 154 A.D.3d 1234

Gregory Kulzer and Ronald Brown were long‑time Dairy Product Specialists with NYS Dept. of Agriculture & Markets who inspect and rate milk plants and farms.
Kulzer received initial departmental approval (with limits) in 2013 to campaign for and serve as a Lewis County Legislator; after one year the Department denied renewal and the Commissioner upheld the denial on conflict‑of‑interest/appearance grounds.
Brown later sought approval to campaign for and serve as an Oneida County Legislator; the Department denied his request and the Commissioner affirmed for similar reasons.
The Department amended its Employee Policies Handbook to bar employees who conduct inspections of regulated parties (26 positions) from campaigning for or holding elected office, while leaving other political activities available.
Kulzer and Brown brought a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action alleging First Amendment violations and that the Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously; Supreme Court granted summary judgment to respondents, and petitioners appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of approval to campaign/hold county office violated First Amendment	Kulzer/Brown: prohibition against campaigning/holding office is protected political speech and office‑holding is a matter of public concern; Department’s action infringes rights	Dept: employees do not surrender all rights; Pickering balancing favors employer because inspections give discretion and dual roles create appearance of conflict and disruption	Court: Held for Dept — Pickering balance favors employer; policy and denials were constitutional
Whether Department’s revised outside‑activities policy and denials were arbitrary and capricious under CPLR article 78	Kulzer/Brown: determinations lacked rational basis and departed from prior approvals	Dept: decisions rationally based on avoiding appearance of conflict; explanations for reversal were reasoned and limited to inspection positions	Court: Held for Dept — determinations had a rational basis and were not arbitrary or capricious

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (balances public employee speech against employer interests)
United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (limits on government employee political activity analyzed under First Amendment principles)
Castine v. Zurlo, 756 F.3d 171 (2d Cir.) (campaigning for office is speech on a matter of public concern)
Melzer v. Board of Education, 336 F.3d 185 (2d Cir.) (public employer’s interest in regulating employee speech differs from regulation of citizens)
Anemone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 629 F.3d 97 (2d Cir.) (tests for employer’s reasonable prediction of disruption)
Piscottano v. Murphy, 511 F.3d 247 (2d Cir.) (appearance of conflict can justify restriction on employee political activity)
Matter of Santer v. Board of Education, 23 N.Y.3d 251 (N.Y.) (state law recognition that public employees retain some First Amendment rights)