9 F. Supp. 3d 255
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Plaintiff Volpi, born 1954, alleges age discrimination under the ADEA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- She was employed by Center Moriches Union Free School District since 1985 as a business teacher; served as department chair in earlier years.
- In Feb. 2011 she was issued a pink slip due to budget-driven department eliminations; she was the oldest, most experienced, and highest paid among those affected.
- In March 2011 she discussed alternatives and offered to work outside her subject area but was told no positions were available; she submitted an Intent of Possible Early Retirement to retain health benefits.
- Ultimately the business department was not eliminated and she contends younger, less experienced teachers retained their positions; she asserts constructive discharge and loss of pension benefits.
- The District and individuals moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c); the court denied the motion in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983 equal protection claim is preempted by the ADEA. | Volpi argues §1983 claim remains viable despite ADEA. | Defendants contend ADEA preempts §1983 age claims. | Not preempted; §1983 claim viable against constitutional rights. |
| Whether the claim asserts a valid public-employment Equal Protection violation (Engquist framework). | Plaintiff alleges age-based discrimination in employment as a constitutional violation. | Defendants rely on Engquist to limit class-based discrimination review. | Engquist distinguishes class-based public employment discrimination; valid under Equal Protection. |
| Whether the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. | Violation of clearly established constitutional rights due to age discrimination. | Unclear preemption question warrants qualified immunity. | Denied; plaintiff alleged a clearly established right to be free from age discrimination. |
| Whether punitive damages are available and whether liquidated damages apply. | Punitive damages asserted under ADEA/§1983; liquidated damages possible for willful conduct. | Punitive damages unavailable; no liquidated damages discussed. | Punitive damages denied; claim survives as liquidated damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir.2004) (§1983 claims may vindicate constitutional rights, not statutory rights alone)
- Gierlinger v. New York State Police, 15 F.3d 32 (2d Cir.1994) (§1983 claims for constitutional violations in public employment)
- Saulpaugh v. Monroe Community Hospital, 4 F.3d 134 (2d Cir.1993) (constitutional framing of §1983 claims against state actors)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (class-based discrimination in public employment remains subject to Equal Protection)
- Butts v. NYC Housing Preservation and Development, 307 Fed.Appx. 596 (2d Cir.2009) (open question on ADEA preemption of §1983 in Second Circuit)
- Piccone v. Town of Webster, 511 Fed.Appx. 63 (2d Cir.2013) (open question on ADEA preemption of §1983 in Second Circuit)