17-51 7-cv

Cohn v. De p’t o f Edu c. of N.Y. C.



### U N I T E D S TAT E S C OURT O F A P P EA L S F O R T HE S E C O

ND C I R C U I T



## S UM M ARY O RD E R

R UL I NG S B Y S U

M M A R Y OR D E R D O NO T H

A V E PR E C E D EN T I A

L E F FE C T

. C I T

A T I O N T O A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R F I LE D ON OR AF T E R J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S PE R M I T T E D A

N D I S GO

V E R NE D B Y F E D E R

A L R U LE O F A P PE L L

A T E P R O C E D UR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L O C

A L R U LE 32.1.1. WHEN C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R I N A D O C U M EN T F I LE D W I T H T H I S C OUR T , A P

A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P PEN

D I X OR A

N E LE C T R O N I C DA T A B AS E ( W I T H T HE NO T

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ”). A P

A R T Y C I T I NG A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F I T O

N A NY P A R T Y NO T R

E PR E S ENT E D B Y C OU

N S E L

.
At a state d ter m of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals for t he Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in t he Ci ty of New York, on th e 20 day of Se ptemb er, two th ousan d sev entee n.

th

PRESE NT: DENNI S JAC OBS,

JOSÉ A. CA

BRANE S, RAYMO ND J. LOHI ER, JR.

Circu it Ju dges.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

PETER COHN , Plain tiff- Appel lant,

-v.- 17-51 7-cv

THE D EPART MENT OF ED UCATI ON OF THE CITY OF NE W YORK, TH E BOARD OF EDUCA TION OF TH E CIT Y OF NEW Y ORK, ERIC STRAU SS, i ndivi duall y, an d JAMES JOHNS ON, i ndivi duall y,

Defen dants -Appe llees

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

1FOR A PPELLANT: STEWA RT LE E KAR LIN, Stewa rt Le e Karli n Law Grou p, PC , New York , NY.

FOR A PPELL EES: ERIC LEE ( Fay N g on the b rief) , for Z achar y W. Carte r, Corpo ratio n Cou nsel of th e Cit y of Ne w Yor k, Ne w Yor k, NY

. Appea l fro m a j udgme nt of the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Court for the E aster n Dis trict of N ew Yo rk (B lock, J.).

UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJU DGED AND D ECREE D that the judgm ent o f the dist rict court be AFFIR MED

.

Peter Cohn , a N ew Yo rk Ci ty pu blic schoo l tea cher, alleg es th at he suff ered unlaw ful r etali ation afte r he sugge sted that a fel low t eache r had impr operl y ass isted stude nts p repar e for a st ate-w ide s tanda rdize d tes t. The 1 Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Co urt f or th e Eas tern Distr ict o f New York (Bloc k, J. ) dis misse d the comp laint on m otion , concl uding that Cohn ’s sp eech was n ot pr otect ed by the First Amend ment becau se it was made pursu ant t o his duti es as a gover nment empl oyee. We revie w tha t dec ision de n ovo. Ruoto lo v. City of N ew Yo rk, 5 14 F. 3d 18 4, 18 8 (2d Cir. 2008) . We assu me th e par ties’ fami liari ty wi th th e under lying fact s, th e pro cedur al hi story , and the issue s prese nted for r eview

. As pa rt of his dutie s as an ea rth s cienc e tea cher, Cohn
was r equir ed to set up th e lab orato ry po rtion of t he Ne w York State Rege nts E xamin ation and help grade it. Cohn obser ved t hat a pprox imate ly a dozen stud ents in an other teach er’s class rece ived perfe ct sc ores, and suspe cted that the t eache r had impr operl y coa ched those stud ents befor e the test. Coh n rai sed h is co ncern s to the s chool ’s pr incip al and a ssist ant p rinci pal a nd, w hen t hey f ailed to a ct, C ohn infor med t he Ne w Yor k Sta te De partm ent o f Edu catio n and the Board of R egent s. C ohn a llege s tha t he after ward suffe red vario us ad verse empl oymen t con seque nces, incl uding unsat isfac tory perfo rmanc e rev iews.

Coh n sue d his prin cipal and assis tant princ ipal, as 1 well as th e New York City Depa rtmen t of Educa tion and B oard of Ed ucati on.

2Only certa in ty pes o f spe ech m ade b y gov ernme nt

emplo yees are p rotec ted b y the Firs t Ame ndmen t: it is

neces sary (but not s uffic ient) that the gover nment empl oyee “sp[e ak] ‘ as a citiz en’ r ather than sole ly as an e mploy ee.” Matth ews v . Cit y of New Y ork, 779 F .3d 1 67, 1 72 (2 d Cir

. 2015) (quo ting Jackl er v. Byrn e, 65 8 F.3 d 225 , 235 (2d Cir. 2011) ). T here is no “bri ghtli ne ru le” t o det ermin e whe ther
or no t “a publi c emp loyee is s peaki ng pu rsuan t to [his] offic ial d uties ,” i. e., s peaki ng as an e mploy ee ra ther than
as a citiz en. Ross v. Br eslin , 693 F.3d 300, 306 (2d C ir. 2012) . “C ourts must exam ine t he na ture of th e pla intif f’s job r espon sibil ities , the natu re of the speec h, an d the relat ionsh ip be tween the two.” Id.

In We intra ub v. Boar d of Educa tion, a te acher alle ged retal iatio n aft er co mplai ning that a sch ool a dmini strat or had d eclin ed to puni sh a stude nt wh o had thro wn bo oks a t the teach er. 593 F .3d 1 96, 1 98 (2 d Cir . 201 0). The t eache r’s compl aint was m ade “ pursu ant t o his offi cial dutie s bec ause it wa s par t-and -parc el of his conce rns a bout his a bilit y to prope rly e xecut e his duti es as a pu blic schoo l tea cher-

- namel y, to main tain class room disci pline .” I d. at 203 (cita tion and q uotat ion m arks omitt ed). Cons equen tly, the teach er sp oke a s an emplo yee r ather than as a citi zen.

So to o her e. C ohn a nd th e oth er ea rth s cienc e tea chers
were respo nsibl e for sett ing u p the labo rator y exa m, creat ing t he an swer key, and g radin g the exam . As in Weint raub, Cohn ’s sp eech was “ part- and-p arcel ” of his j ob respo nsibi litie s--he re, e nsuri ng th e fai r and prop er admin istra tion of a test for w hich he ha d som e respo nsibi lity. Id. The aler t to schoo l off icial s tha t anoth er te acher may have helpe d stu dents chea t was ther efore “purs uant to hi s off icial duti es.” Id. Acco rding ly, C ohn
was s peaki ng as an e mploy ee--r ather than as a citi zen-- and his s peech is u nprot ected by t he Fi rst A mendm ent.

Cohn’ s cou ntera rgume nts a re un avail ing. He c onten ds that he wa s spe aking in a priv ate c apaci ty wh en he rais ed his c oncer ns be yond his i mmedi ate s uperv isors (the prin cipal and a ssist ant p rinci pal) by wr iting to s tate educa tiona l offic ials. A s imila r arg ument was rejec ted i n Ros s: “[t]a king a com plain t up the c hain of co mmand to f ind

someo ne wh o wil l tak e it serio usly ‘does not, with out m ore, trans form

. . . spee ch in to pr otect ed sp eech made as a

3priva te ci tizen .’” 693 F .3d a t 307 (quo ting Anemo ne v.

Metro . Tra nsp. Auth. , 629 F.3d 97, 116 ( 2d Ci r. 20 11)).

Cohn also argue s tha t he spoke as a citi zen r ather than
as an empl oyee becau se pr ivate citi zens may l ikewi se wr ite to st ate e ducat ional offi cials abou t sus pecte d che ating

. Altho ugh a “civ ilian anal ogue” to a gove rnmen t emp loyee ’s speec h mil itate s in favor of a n inf erenc e tha t the emplo yee’s spee ch is prot ected by t he Fi rst A mendm ent, see Matth ews, 779 F .3d a t 175 -76, the p resen ce of an u noffi cial analo gue d oes n ot neces saril y mean the speec h is prote cted. Weint raub concl uded that the p laint iff t eache r spo ke as an emplo yee ( rathe r tha n as a cit izen) befo re th e opi nion consi dered the prese nce o f a c ivili an an alogu e. 5 93 F. 3d at 203. Alth ough the l ack o f a c ivili an an alogu e “su pport ed” the c onclu sion that the t eache r spo ke as an e mploy ee, i t was not d eterm inati ve. Id. Even if pr ivate citi zens can compl ain t o sta te ed ucati onal autho ritie s in the s ame w ay he did, it wo uld n ot ch ange our c onclu sion that Cohn’ s spe ech
was m ade p ursua nt to his offic ial d uties , and ther efore unpro tecte d by the F irst Amend ment.

For t he fo regoi ng re asons , and find ing n o mer it in Cohn’ s oth er ar gumen ts, w e her eby AFFIR M the j udgme nt of the distr ict c ourt.

FOR T HE CO URT: CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK

4