768 F. Supp. 2d 661
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Tessler, an Administrative Law Judge for NY SLA, alleges his position was eliminated in a statewide workforce reduction.
- The reduction eliminated all three full-time ALJ Hearing Officer positions at the SLA effective January 1, 2011.
- Tessler claims the reduction was pretextual retaliation for his evidentiary rulings and not a bona fide budgetary necessity.
- Defendants include the State of New York, the SLA (formerly NYS Liquor Authority), Governor Paterson, and SLA commissioners Rosen, Healy, and Greene.
- Plaintiff asserted federal claims (First Amendment retaliation, substantive and procedural due process) and state-law claims (breach of contract, tortious interference, emotional distress) against those defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation viability | Tessler's speech about evidentiary rulings protected as public concern. | Speech was within official duties; Garcetti applies; not protected. | First Amendment retaliation dismissed; speech not protected under Garcetti. |
| Individual defendants' qualified immunity | Defendants violated clearly established rights. | Actions were discretionary and reasonable. | Claims against individuals in personal capacities dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. |
| Substantive due process | Government action terminating employment shocks conscience. | Right to government employment not fundamental; no shock to conscience. | Substantive due process claim dismissed; no fundamental right implicated. |
| Procedural due process | Need for charges and hearing prior to termination. | No charges; limited hearing at December 9 meeting; post-deprivation process available. | Procedural due process claim dismissed; remedy available via grievance/arbitration or Article 78. |
| Eleventh Amendment bar to state-law claims | State officials liable for state-law claims in federal court. | Eleventh Amendment bars claims against state and state entities; immunity extends to official capacities. | Eleventh Amendment bars state-law claims against state, SLA, and official-capacity defendants; qualified immunity bars claims against individuals in personal capacities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (Supreme Court, 1983) (speech as citizen on public concern; not within official duties if so)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (Supreme Court, 2006) (speech pursuant to official duties not protected)
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989) (sovereign immunity and official-capacity limits)
- Local 342, Long Island Pub. Serv. Empls. v. Town Bd. of the Town of Huntington, 31 F.3d 1191 (2d Cir. 1994) (property interests and due process protections)
- Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2001) (Article 78 adequacy; post-deprivation process)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984) (Eleventh Amendment and state-suit limits)
- Emmerling v. Town of Richmond, 2010 WL 2998911 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (due process and government employment considerations)