United States v. Ortiz, 779 F.3d 167

Officer Craig Matthews (NYPD, 42nd Precinct) alleged a precinct "quota" system pressured officers to make unjustified stops, arrests, and summonses beginning in 2008.
Matthews reported the quota policy to his commanding officers on multiple occasions (2009–2011); he later alleged retaliatory acts by the City after doing so and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation.
District court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding Matthews spoke as an employee (not a citizen), so his speech was unprotected; this appeal followed a prior remand for discovery.
Relevant employment materials: NYPD Patrol Guide duties for officers do not list policy feedback as a regular duty; Patrol Guide §207-21 requires reporting misconduct but is phrased broadly.
Matthews did not use Internal Affairs or a formal grievance process; he spoke directly to precinct commanders via channels (e.g., Community Council) that also receive civilian complaints.
The Second Circuit vacated summary judgment, holding Matthews spoke as a citizen because his speech fell outside his ordinary duties and he used a channel available to civilians; remanded for Pickering analysis and further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Matthews spoke pursuant to his official duties (Garcetti step)	Matthews: reporting/criticizing precinct policy was not part of his day-to-day duties; he had no role in policymaking	City: Patrol Guide duty to report misconduct means he had an official duty to report the quota system	Held: Matthews spoke as a citizen — policy critique was not part-and-parcel of his regular duties; §207-21 did not control the Garcetti inquiry
Whether there was a civilian analogue for the channel Matthews used	Matthews: he reported to commanders through fora (Community Council / meetings) available to civilians	City: Matthews had greater, easier, and more private access to commanders than civilians	Held: Civilian analogue existed — the commanders routinely heard public complaints; degree of access is not dispositive

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (balancing public employee speech against government employer interests)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (public concern and operational disruption framework)
Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ., 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir.) (speech integral to job and use of grievance procedure defeats protection)
Jackler v. Byrne, 658 F.3d 225 (2d Cir.) (civilian-analogue concept for employee speech)
Ross v. Breslin, 693 F.3d 300 (2d Cir.) (speech within payroll clerk’s duties was unprotected)
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (public employer justification assessed under Pickering)