OPINION & ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Gene A. Lefebvre (“Plaintiff’) filed the instant Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Jonathan P. Morgan, Robert E. Levin, Robert K. Palmer, James Barron, Karim Adeen-Hasan, and Daniel J. Cunningham (collectively, “Defendants”), bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights to due process, privacy, and free speech. Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 36.) For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is granted.
I, Background
A. Factual Background
The following facts are drawn from Plaintiffs SAC and are taken as true for the purpose of resolving the instant Motion. The SAC is largely identical to the Amended Complaint except as identified below. Therefore, what follows is an abbreviated account of the facts giving rise to this Action.
1. The Parties
Plaintiff has worked for the New York State Office of General Services (“OGS”) as an assistant building construction engineer from November 4, 1993 to the present. (Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶ 2 (Dkt. No. 25).) Plaintiffs role covered two types of state construction work: (1) “Capital Projects,” which involve work “designed
Defendants are various supervisors, directors, and officers at OGS. Specifically, Defendant Jonathan P. Morgan (“Morgan”) is, and at all relevant times was, “Area Supervisor”; Defendant Robert E. Levin (“Levin”)' is, and at all relevant times was, “Regional Supervisor”; Defendant Robert K. Palmer (“Palmer”) is, and at all relevant times was, “Director of the Division of Construction”; Defendant James Barron (“Barron”) is, and at all relevant times was, “Director of Labor Relations”; Defendant Karim Adeen-Ha-san (“Adeen-Hasan”) is, and at all relevant times was, “Chief Diversity Officer”; and Defendant Daniel J. Cunningham (“Cunningham”) is, and at all relevant times was, “Director of Human Resources Management.” (Id. ¶¶ 8-8.)
2. Plaintiffs Employment at OGS
The SAC describes Plaintiffs participation in two specific projects for OGS: repairs to the “State Emergency Management Office Building/Bunker” in the aftermath of hurricane Irene, (id. ¶¶ 11-16), and roof removal and installation at “DOT Region 8 Maintenance Headquarters,” (id. ¶¶ 17-19). The SAC’s descriptions of these projects are identical to those’ in the Amended Complaint, with the exception of Plaintiffs additional allegation that he “had two responsibilities; one, to accurately describe the contract specifications and emergency requirements, and two, to spearhead discussions to prevent potential pitfalls that the Plaintiff has no direct control over.” (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff .asserts that as to the second responsibility, he “spoke as a matter of [pjublic concern” and made requests that were “not ... a job duty of a construction inspector.” (Id.)
In relation to Plaintiffs “[djaily [w]ork,” the SAC asserts instances 'of threats and harassment by Defendants, particularly between December 27, 2ÓÍÓ and March 25, 2011 and again between October 6, 2011 and December 7, 2011.. (See generally id. ¶¶ 21-77.) For example:'-
• Morgan frequently “made ... false accusations that Plaintiff had been AWOL,” including on December 27, 2010 and throughout the month of January 2011. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.);'
• Morgan “verbally assaulted] Plaintiff throughout the month' of January 2011,” including on .or about January 27, 2011, when Morgan “verbally terrorized]' Plaintiff,” threatened Plaintiff with being AWOL for seeking medical attention without asking for use of leave, and said to him, “You don’t have long now,” and “I am going to break you,” which led Plaintiff to leave the office due to cardiac difficulties. (Id. ¶¶ 23-26, 28.)
• Morgan continued to “verbally terrorize” Plaintiff in early February 2011, and Plaintiff again had to leave the office due to cardiac difficulties, .spending the night of February 2, 2011 in the emergency. room. (Id. ¶ 29.)
• On February 8, 2011, Morgan, with Levin’s authority, . falsely accused Plaintiff of “unspecified - tardinessand unspecified absence without authorization.” (Id. ¶ 30.)
• On February 9, 2011, Morgan “requested that Albany Human Resources revoke Plaintiffs submission of his previous year’s timesheets.” (Id. ¶ 33.) He made the same request the following week, which amounted to “falsely accusing] Plaintiff of misappropriating state time—a serious charge.” (Id. ¶ 38.)
• Also on February 9, 2011, Morgan falsely accused Plaintiff of forging Sloan Kettering forms that confirmed Plaintiff donated blood on certain days. (Id. ¶ 34.)
• On February 15, 2011, Levin “requested that Albany Human Resources revoke Plaintiffs submission of six month and eleven month old timesheets.” (Id. ¶ 36.)
• On February 16, 2011, Morgan threatened to deny Plaintiffs request for time off to go to the doctor, (id. ¶ 37), and on February 22 and February 25, 2011, he denied such requests, (id. ¶¶ 42, 46).
• On February 17, 2011, Plaintiff requested Palmer “intercede and investigate the unhealthy and potentially life-threatening abuse” that Morgan and Levin “were continually inflicting on Plaintiff.” (Id. ¶ 41.)
• On February 23, 2011, Levin backdated Plaintiffs most recent Performance Evaluation, to allow Morgan to give Plaintiff a six-month review in May 2011. (Id. ¶ 44.)
• On February 25, 2011, Morgan falsely accused Plaintiff of improper work procedures, verbally abused and yelled at Plaintiff, falsely accused him of being AWOL, and wrote him up for being AWOL. (Id. ¶¶ 45, 47.)
• On or about March 3, 2011, Morgan “revoked Plaintiffs sworn .., Leave and Accrual Tracking System ... document.” (Id. ¶ 48.)
• On or about October 6, 2011, Morgan falsely accused Plaintiff of being AWOL the previous day, and supported the accusation by wrongfully adjusting times and dates. Plaintiff disputed these times and dates with Morgan but “to no avail.” (Id. ¶¶ 67-68.)
• On or about October 18, 2011, Morgan attempted to provoke Plaintiff by stating to him upon entering the office, “Thanks for leaving so you don’t hurt me.” Plaintiff sent an email to Palmer and Adeen-Hasan notifying them of the incident. (Id. ¶¶ 69-70.)
• Plaintiff claims that on or about December 5, 2011, Morgan falsely accused Plaintiff of being AWOL on October 6 and October 12⅛ 2011. (Id. ¶¶ 72-73.) Levin “wrongfully backed ... Morgan’s false accusations.” (Id. ¶ 74.)
The SAC specifically alleges that Defendants “wrongfully demanded” that Plaintiff disclose certain medical information and that such information “require[d] Plaintiff to publicly air medical issues with superiors” and other employees. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 50.) Plaintiff contends that these demands— which spanned from February to March 2011—“violated [Plaintiffs] right to privacy” and were made “solely for the purpose of mining ... for [P]laintiff s medical information.” (Id. ¶¶ 31-32.) Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant Levin had his secretary scan and e-mail Plaintiff’s doctor’s information, contrary to HIPPA, and Plaintiffs constitutional right to privacy, as well as practices of common decency,” (id. ¶ 52), and that “[ujpon information and belief, Defendant Levin sent Plaintiffs personal medical information to other supervisors in [OGS],” (id.). Plaintiff sought “relief from
The SAC also contains references to various internal grievances and complaints filed by Plaintiff, including:
• Workers’ Compensation Claim: Plaintiff filed the claim in February 2011 “to document the physical toll Defendants’ actions were taking on him.” (Id. ¶ 35.) Based on Plaintiffs supporting documentation, the claim was settled, and the State Insurance Fund agreed to pay Plaintiff a net payment of $2,215, as well as the costs of the medical bills for 20 visits by Plaintiff to his psychiatrist. (See id. Ex. G.)
• Request for Reasonable Accommodation: Plaintiff filed this request to Cunningham on or about February 23, 2011, and the request “provided in great detail the abuse by ... Morgan.” (Id. ¶ 43.) In an email attached as an exhibit, Plaintiff explained to Cunningham at the time that he had “a series of upcoming [d]octor appointments, all due ... to the stressful work environment.” (See id. Ex. I.)
• Taylor Law Request: On or about March 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request under the Taylor Law, “which allows union[s] to make certain demands of management, in order to learn the nature of ... Morgan’s complaints against Plaintiff,” but Levin ignored the request. (Id. ¶ 65.)
• Workplace Violence Complaint: Plaintiff filed this complaint “after OGS finally made the [workplace violence] policy available” in January 2012. (Id. ¶ 75.) The complaint itself is dated March 6, 2013, and states that Morgan “created a [h]ostile and [a]busive work [e]nvironment on a daily basis,” which resulted in medical issues for Plaintiff. (See id. Ex. K.) On January 6, 2014, Plaintiff received a letter from the Assistant Director of Personnel for the Division of Human Resources Management for OGS, which stated that Plaintiffs “claim of workplace violence had been substantiated.” (Id. ¶ 84; see also id. Ex. L.)
• Hostile Work Environment Claim: Plaintiff alleges that Adeen-Hasan “stonewalled the Hostile Work Environment investigation.” (Id. ¶ 77(B).) According to Plaintiffs Workplace Violence Complaint, “[u]pper management was informed” of the hostile work environment but an “[i]nvestigation was conducted for Sexual/Racial/Religious Harrassment [sic], which was never alleged.” (Id. Ex. K.)
Plaintiff alleges that he faced retaliation from Defendants Morgan, Levin, Palmer, Cunningham, and Adeem-Hasan for filing the following claims: “harassment; Taylor Law Request; Workplace Violence Complaint; and Request for Reasonable Accommodation.” (Id. ¶ 76.)
On September 23, 2012, a Notice of Discipline was filed against Plaintiff asserting that he was AWOL on certain days and
Plaintiff alleges that through their actions, Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights to due process, privacy, and free speech. (Id. ¶¶ 92-93, 97,100.) As a result, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs and fees of the Action.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on July 15, 2014, (Dkt. No. 1), and on December 2, 2014, filed his Amended Complaint, (Dkt. Nó. 10). On March 9, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and accompanying memorandum of law, (Dkt. Nos. 20-21), Plaintiff filed his opposition on April 24, 2015, (Dkt. No. 22), and Defendants filed their reply brief in further support of the motion to dismiss on May 22, 2015, (Dkt. No. 23). On March 31, 2016, the Court issued an Opinion & Order (“Opinion”), granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 24.) In its Opinion, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a SAC within 30 days. (Id. at 38.)
On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed his SAC. (Dkt. No. 25.) On August 1, 2016, Defendants filed the instant Motion and accompanying memorandum of law, (Dkt. Nos. 36-37), and on October 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants’ Motion, (Dkt. No. 40). Defendants filed their reply on October 24, 2016. (Dkt. No. 43.)
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
“[W]hen ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus,
Lastly, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe his pleadings liberally and “interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Maisonet v. Metro. Hosp. & Health Hosp. Corp.,
B. Analysis
1. First Amendment Retaliation Claim
In its prior Opinion, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Plaintiffs comments “amounted to speech as an employee, not a citizen” and therefore, “Plaintiff ha[d] not pleaded that he engaged in any speech protected by the First Amendment.” (Opinion 22 (internal quotation marks omitted).) In his SAC, Plaintiff reasserts his prior allegations regarding his right to free speech without variation, but adds the following:
Plaintiff spoke as a matter of [p]ublic concern when addressing [contractors on [sjafety and [hjazards that affect all people that have access to the areas and surrounding areas of the construction site. As a representative of a [h]ost [e]m-ployer, the primary employers’ actions can cause health and safety issues for themselves, clients affected by the work, and the public that has to visit the [sjtate [ojffice locations. Plaintiff had two responsibilities; one, to accurately describe the contract specifications and emergency requirements, and two, to spearhead discussions to prevent potential pitfalls that the Plaintiff has no direct control over. As an example, requesting citizens to use a pedestrian over[]pass versus walking within extended areas of hazard would not be a job duty of a construction inspector.
(SAC ¶ 20 (emphases added).) The amended pleading attempts to frame Plaintiffs speech as an instance of protected speech made on a matter of public concern in Plaintiffs capacity as a private citizen, and thus, protected by the First Amendment. Defendants aver that Plaintiffs new allegations are similarly inadequate as “the context of Plaintiffs speech was that of a public employee during the course of doing his job” and that “Plaintiffs allegations concern only his own employment at OGS and his personal interest, rather than ... matters of public concern.” (See Mem. of Law in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. To Dismiss Pl.’s SAC (“Defs.’ Mem.”) 14 (Dkt. No. 37).)
It is “established law in this Circuit that ... a plaintiff alleging retaliation [must] establish [he engaged in] speech protected by the First Amendment.” Sousa v. Roque,
To constitute speech on a matter of public concern, an employee’s expression must “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Connick v. Myers,
However, even assuming that Plaintiffs speech addressed a matter of public concern, his claim fails as it is clear Plaintiffs comments on “[s]afety and [h]az-ards” was speech by an employee, rather than a citizen. (Id. ¶20.) “[S]peech made ‘pursuant to’ a public employee’s job duties,” is “ ‘speech that owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities,’” and is not protected by the First Amendment. Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist.,
Plaintiffs denial of “direct control over” “potential pitfalls” and his contention that it was “not ... a job duty of a construction inspector” to comment on pedestrian safety in worksites, (SAC ¶20), does not change the fact that Plaintiffs speech was “pursuant to [his] official job duties” as an assistant building construction engineer, Weintmub,
2, Procedural Due Process Claim
“To plead a violation of procedural due process, ... a plaintiff must first identify a property right, second show that the government has deprived him of that right, and third show that the deprivation was effected without due process.” J.S. v. T’Kach,
a. Property Right
In its prior Opinion, the Court noted that “Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [wa]s devoid of any reference to a state law, contract, or collective bargaining agreement that prohibits his discharge, or the imposition of other discipline, without cause, which would create a property right in his continued employment and may entitle him to due process protections before a suspension without pay.” (Opinion 24.) Thus, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to “sufficiently allege[ ] the basis of his property interest in his employment.” (Id. at 26.) Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to “file a Second Amended Complaint that more clearly alleges the source of his property right.” (Id. at 30; see also id. at 27 n.17 (“If Plaintiff chooses to file a Second Amended Complaint, he should include allegations that address the source of his alleged property interest in his employment—be it New York’s Civil Service Law, a collective bargaining agreement, or something else.”).) Plaintiff has now adequately alleged the source of his property right.
New York Civil Service Law § 75 “gives covered employees a property interest in their employment, so that they may not be terminated without notice and hearing.” O’Neill v. City of Auburn,
b. Deprivation of Property Without Due Process
Defendants argue that as with Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, “Plaintiffs SAC is devoid of facts adequately alleging how he was denied due process, what process he was due, and who denied him his process.” (Defs.’ Mem. 10; see also Reply Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. To Dismiss 4-5 (Dkt. No. 43).) The Court agrees that, even as amended, Plaintiffs pleading does not state a claim for a procedural due process violation because it does not sufficiently allege that Plaintiff was denied due process.
“[W]hether the government deprived the plaintiff of [an] interest without due process” is an inquiry that “asks what process was due to the plaintiff, and inquires whether that constitutional, minimum was provided in the case under -review.” Narumanchi v. Bd. of Trs. of Ct. St. Univ.,
Plaintiffs sole new contention in the SAC regarding his due process claim is that he “was deprived of due process by Defendants ‘alleging specific allegations during the [interrogation process, which is a fact finding exercise for [discipline, and then changing the focus of the Notice [o]f Discipline from the areas of [interrogation.”’ (Pl.’s Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Defs.’ Second Mot. To Dismiss .(“PL’s Opp’n”) 20 (Dkt. No. 40)) (quoting (SAC ¶80)).
3. Privacy Claim
Plaintiff alleges that “[b]y revealing sensitive facts relating to Plaintiffs emotional and physical healthy Defendants violated [his] right to privacy under the Constitution.” (SAC ¶ 97.) In its prior Opinion, the Court held that Plaintiffs privacy claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that Plaintiff failed to establish that equitable tolling could make his claim timely. (See Opinion 30-35.) Plaintiff now pleads that the application of equitable tolling is warranted due to his “diligent[ ] pursuit] [of] his ... right to privacy,” (SAC ¶87), “the imposed chain of command required of Plaintiff by Defendants,” (id. ¶ 88), and the impediment of “[three] months of training and commuting” “in excess of 50 miles one way,” (id. ¶ 89). The Court once again finds that Plaintiffs privacy claim is time-barred, and that equitable tolling does not apply.
a. Equitable Tolling
While “the defendant ] bear[s] the burden of establishing the expiration of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense,” Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. RBS Citizens, N.A.,
When a plaintiff brings an action under § 1983, “courts apply the statute of limitations for personal injury actions under state law.” Hogan v. Fischer,
By Plaintiffs own accord, “his privacy right violation ... took place ... in March 2011.” (PL’s Opp’n 10.)
Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations is applied “only in ‘rare and exceptional circumstances,’ where ... ‘extraordinary circumstances’ prevented a party from timely performing a required act, and ... the party ‘acted with reasonable diligence throughout the period he [sought] to toll.’” Walker v. Jastremski,
Plaintiff avers that he “is entitled to equitable tolling on all [of] his claims, particularly his breach of privacy claim,” (SAC ¶ 86), because “Defendants placed serious and extraordinary circumstances in Plaintiffs way ... [that] effectively concealed his privacy claim.” (PL’s Opp’n 11.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was “diligently pursuing ... his right to privacy, but Defendants never responded to Plaintiffs Taylor Law [r]equest.” (SAC ¶ 87.) Additionally, Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling “due to the imposed chain of command required of Plaintiff by Defendants,” (id. ¶ 88), and the fact that following his removal as engineer-in-charge, Plaintiff was “required to commute daily in excess of 50 miles one way to be trained” as an estimator, (id. ¶89). Plaintiff asserts that he “was mentally worn out with the [three] months of training and commuting” and “has shown the extraordinary effort required to overcome the extraordinary impediments placed in his way.” (Id.) The Court addresses each alleged basis for equitable tolling in turn.
Plaintiff avers that he “sent a' Taylor Law [r]equest to Defendant Levin dated March 24, 2011[,] requesting information relating to ... his privacy right violation.” (PL’s Opp’n 10.)
ii. Imposed Chain of Command
Plaintiff contends that he is “entitled to a tolling of the statute of limitations due to the imposed chain of command required of Plaintiff by Defendants.” (SAC ¶ 88.) Plaintiff asserts that he “filed the requisite claims within the New York State Office of General Services Agency, moving on to New York Dep[artmen]t[ ] [o]f Labor, and only after getting no satisfaction from New York State avenues[,] ... [filed] a [federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.” (Id.)
As noted in the Court’s prior Opinion, (see Opinion 34), other than those brought pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), § 1983 claims generally do not require exhaustion of administrative or state remedies before a plaintiff can file an action, see Coleman v. Dumeng, No. 10-CV-8766,
In response to the Court’s dismissal, Plaintiff contends that “it was [his] Taylor
Plaintiff has thus not plausibly alleged that equitable tolling is appropriate. See Guo v. IBM 401(k) Plus Plan,
iii. Impediments of Training and Commuting
Finally, with regard to the 50-mile commute Plaintiff faced following his removal as engineer-in-charge, the Court finds that such conditions simply do not amount to the “extraordinary circum-stanee[s]” that prevent parties from timely filing suit and thus warrant equitable tolling. A.Q.C.,
Because the three-year statute of limitations governing Plaintiffs § 1983 privacy claim began to run no later than March 2011, Plaintiff’s Action filed.in July 2014 is untimely. As Plaintiff is not entitled to tolling of the statute of limitations, his privacy claim is dismissed.
III. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion. Because Plaintiff has already amended his Complaint twice—including once in response to a decision on the merits of his claims—but has still failed to state a claim, the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Denny v. Barber,
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. For a full recitation of the facts, see the Court’s prior Opinion & Order issued in March 2016. (See Opinion & Order ("Opinion”) (Mar. 31, 2016) (Dkt. No. 24).)
. In its prior Opinion, the Court noted ambiguity in the Amended Complaint as to what medical information was actually disclosed by Plaintiff as a result of the Defendants' demands. (See Opinion 32 n.21.) The Amended Complaint states that Plaintiff “would be sending ADM 48s to Human Resources.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 61 (Dkt. No. 10) (emphasis added).) In the SAC, Plaintiff clarifies that he "sent every required ADM 48 to Human Resources.” (SAC ¶ 63).
. The Court’s March 2016 Opinion addressed Plaintiffs retaliation claims regarding his filing of "numerous grievance reports.” (See Opinion 14-17.) Plaintiff's SAC does not assert new facts or allegations regarding these grievances. Because these filings, “at [their] heart, [are] limited to” “personal grievance[s] related to the conditions of [Plaintiffs] employment,” the Court reiterates that these filings "do[] not implicate the First Amendment” and cannot form the basis of a First Amendment retaliation claim. Golodner v. Berliner,
. Plaintiff asserts that he "told Defendant Morgan that Plaintiff wanted to issue violations to the [cjontractor for improper use of á ladder and lack of use of hard hats with overhead hazards”—tasks directly related to his ordinary job responsibilities. (SAC ¶ 18.) It was these disagreements between Plaintiff and Defendants as to how the projects should be completed and Plaintiff's interactions with on-site contractors that allegedly resulted in Plaintiffs "denigración] ... to the Facility Manager” and "remov[al] from th[e] project.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s SAC does not allege that Plaintiff suffered retaliation as a result of making a request that "citizens .., use a pedestrian over[]pass.” (Id. ¶ 20.) Indeed, it is not clear from Plaintiff's SAC that he actually “requested] citizens to use a pedestrian over[]pass” or if he simply offers it as a hypothetical request that would be outside the scope of his responsibilities. (Id.) Moreover, it does not appear from the SAC that Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s request regarding citizens’ welfare, let alone that such speech forms the basis of Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim.
. Paragraph 81 of the SAC is an addition to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and alleges that "the dates of the accused AWOL during the [interrogation were not the dates of the Notice of Discipline.” (SAC ¶ 81.) While the paragraph itself is new, the contention is indistinguishable from that alleged in the Amended Complaint and elsewhere in the SAC. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 76; SAC ,¶ 78 ("A Notice of Discipline, dated September 23, 2012, was filed against Plaintiff alleging that he was AWOL on different days than those about which he was earlier interrogated.”).)
. In its previous Opinion, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s allegation that he “could not defend himself against the internet usage portion of the notice because the OGS website had purportedly changed,” (Am. Comp. ¶ 76; SAC ¶ 78), did “not explain how this somehow prevented him from presenting his side ot the story prior to the imposition of his suspension,” (Opinion 28 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted)). Plaintiffs SAC fails to respond to this deficiency and therefore, the Court declines to reconsider it as a basis for Plaintiffs due process claim.
. The SAC alleges violations of Plaintiff’s right to privacy throughout February and March 2011. (See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 31-32, 50, 52, 60-61.) At the very latest, the statute of limitations began running on March 24, 2011, when Plaintiff knew of the injury which is the basis of his claim and, accordingly, sent Defendants the Taylor Law request.
. New York’s Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act, commonly known as the Taylor Law, exists “to promote harmonious and cooperative relationships between government and its employees and to protect the public by assuring, at all times, the orderly and uninterrupted operations and functions of government.” N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law § 200. Sections 209~a(l), together with §§ 202 and 203, provide the "right of an employee organization to obtain information relevant to a potential contractual grievance about the interpretation, application,] or alleged violation of a provision of a collective bargaining agreement.” Pfau v. Public Empl. Relations Bd.,
. As the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for violation of his constitutional rights, the Court declines to consider Defendants’ arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (See Defs.’ Mem. 18-20.)