Tooly v. Schwaller
919 F.3d 165
2d Cir.2019Background
- Tooly, a SUNY motor vehicle operator since 2000, was placed on involuntary leave May 17, 2011 and later terminated in August 2011 after a series of workplace incidents and missed medical exams/disciplinary meetings.
- SUNY/Human Resources sent notices scheduling medical exams and a disciplinary interrogation; Tooly failed to attend the exams and the interrogation (his attorney sought information but did not respond to HR’s calls).
- SUNY initially issued a Notice of Discipline on July 18, 2011 (inconsistent effective dates), withdrew it, then issued a new Notice on August 8, 2011 terminating employment 14 days after receipt; Tooly alleges he could not file a grievance due to a wrong address.
- Tooly sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (procedural due process and equal protection) and New York Human Rights Law claims; district court granted summary judgment to SUNY and Dolan, denied summary judgment to Schwaller on the due process claim (finding potential state-law Civil Service violations and denying qualified immunity).
- Schwaller brought interlocutory appeal solely on denial of qualified immunity. The Second Circuit limited review to facts Tooly alleges and addressed whether Schwaller violated clearly established federal due process law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schwaller is entitled to qualified immunity on Tooly’s procedural due process claim | Tooly: Schwaller violated New York Civil Service Law and thereby deprived him of required process before involuntary leave and termination; thus no immunity | Schwaller: State-law violations do not automatically defeat qualified immunity; on the alleged facts he did not violate clearly established federal due process law | Reversed district court; Schwaller entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law |
| Whether placement on involuntary leave deprived Tooly of a protected property interest | Tooly: Leave was involuntary and effectively deprived him of employment-related property interest | Schwaller: Leave preserved pay through accruals and half-pay sick leave, so no pecuniary loss occurred | Placing Tooly on involuntary leave did not deprive a protected property interest (no due process triggered) |
| Whether termination deprived Tooly of a protected property interest requiring pre-deprivation process | Tooly: Termination is a property deprivation requiring Loudermill process | Schwaller: Does not dispute termination is a deprivation but contends he provided opportunity for Loudermill process and Tooly failed to use it | Termination is a deprivation, but on these facts no clearly established law required additional/alternative procedures when employee fails to appear; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether violation of New York Civil Service Law alone establishes clearly established federal due process violation | Tooly: Civil Service Law noncompliance demonstrates lack of constitutional process | Schwaller: Federal due process standards govern; state statutory violation is not per se clearly established federal law | Court: State-law violation alone does not negate qualified immunity; must show violation of clearly established federal law — which Tooly failed to do |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pre-termination due process requires notice, explanation of evidence, and chance to respond)
- O'Connor v. Pierson, 426 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005) (distinguishes when leave with pay implicates property interests)
- Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1987) (federal due process standards control over state procedures)
- Brown v. City of New York, 798 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2015) (violation of state law requirements does not automatically defeat qualified immunity)
- Cerrone v. Brown, 246 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2001) (qualified immunity standards explained)
- Bolmer v. Oliveira, 594 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2010) (interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity limited to plaintiff’s alleged facts)
- Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (elements of procedural due process claim)
- Narumanchi v. Bd. of Trustees of Conn. State Univ., 850 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1988) (failure to submit to procedures precludes challenging their fairness)
- Russell v. Coughlin, 910 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990) (state-specified procedures do not settle federal due process requirements)