1

07-5468-cv Debbie Almontaser v. NYC Dep’t of Educ. UN ITED STA TES COURT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE S E COND C IR C U IT

_____________________ August Term, 2007 (Argued: Fe bruar

y 5, 2008 Dec ided: Marc h 20, 2008)

Docke t No. 07-5468-c v

_____________________ D EB BI E A L MO NT AS ER , Plaintif f-Appellant , — v .— N EW Y O RK C I TY D EP A RT M EN T O F E DUC ATI ON , J O EL KLE IN , I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND I N HI S OF F I C I AL CA PA CI T Y A S C HAN CE L L OR OF THE N EW Y O RK C I TY D EP A RT M EN T O F E DUC ATI ON , R O SEMA RY S T U A RT , I N D I V I D U A LLY A N D I N H ER O FFI CI A L CA PA CI T Y A S C OMMUNI TY S UP ER I NTEN DE NT OF D I S TR I C T 15 AND H I R I NG M ANA GER , M I CH A EL B LOO M BERG , I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND I N HI S OF F I C I AL CAPACI TY AS THE M AYO R OF THE C I T Y O F N EW Y OR K AND D EN N I S W AL C OT T , I N D I V I D U A LLY A N D I N H I S O FFI CI A L CA PA CI T Y A S D EP UTY M A Y O R F O R E DUC ATI ON AN D C OMM UN I TY D EV EL OP MENT , Defendants-A ppellees
.

___________________ Be fore : N EW MAN , W I NT ER , AND B.D
. P ARKE R , Circuit Judges
.

___________________ Appea l from an or der of

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York (Stein, J. ), deny

ing a motion for a pre liminary injunction. AFF I RMED.

___________________2 A L AN L EV I NE , New Y ork, NY ( C y n th i a R o l l i n g s , M e l v i nL. Wulf, Cl are R. Norins, Be ldock L evine & Hoffma n L L P; a nd Ar thu r E ise nb e rg , N e w Y or

k Ci vil L iberties Union F oundation, on the brief ), for Plaintif f-Appellant
. D RAKE A. C OL L EY , Assistant Corporation Counsel (Edwar d F.X. H art, on the brief

), for Michae l A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of Ne w York, N ew York, NY
.

___________________ P ER C UR I AM : Plaintiff-Appellant De bbie Almontaser a ppeals the D ece mber 5, 2007 orde r of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork (Stein, J. ), deny ing he r motion for a preliminary

injunction. W e af

firm the orde r.

BACK GR OUND Fr om 2005 to 2007, Almontaser, an Ar ab-A merica n, has led the de velopment of the Khalil Gibran International Acade my (“K GIA”) , a Ne w York City public high sc hool offer ing
c la sse s in Ar a b la ngua g e and

c ult ur e to f os te r m ult ic ult ur a l un de rs tand ingand

to p re pa re stu de nts for c are ers in international affa irs and diplomacy . The re cord r efle cts that since the N ew Yor k City Depa rtment of Educ ation (“D OE”) announce d its approval of the school in Fe bruar y 2007,
c e rt a in gro up s h ave c la ime d th at bo th K GIA a nd Al monta se r a

re a ff ili ate d w ithra dic a l I sla

m. On Au g us t 3, 20 07 , a

n inte rn e t- ba se d gro up c a lle d St op the Ma dr a sa Coa lit ion iss ue d a pr e ss rele ase a lleg ing that Almontaser wa s connec ted to t-shirts bear ing the words “I ntifada N YC” that
we re a lle g e dly

so ld b y a g ro up kn own a s A ra

b Wo me n A c tiv e in t

he Ar ts a nd Me dia“Intifada,” a g erund, me ans “to shiver , shudder, tre mor.” Ha ns Wehr, Arab ic -E

ng lis h 1 Dictionary (

The Hans W

ehr Dictionary of Mode rn W ritten Arabic) 1157 (J. M ilton C owan e d., 4th e d. 19 79 ). As a

no un , “ int if

a da ” a lso re fe rs to “ [a]n

Ar a b u pr isi ngor re vo lt, ” sp e c if

ic a lly “the Palestinian insurre ction and unre st in the I srae li-occupie d West Bank a nd Gaza Strip, which beg an in late 1987.” Ox

for d E ng lis h D ic tio na ry

Ad dit ion s S e rie s (O xfor d U niv e rs ity

Pr e ss 1993), available at http:// dictionary .oed.com/cg i/entry /00293434? single =1& query _ty pe=w ords& query

word= intifada &f irst=1& max_t o_show=10. “Na- fa- da,” the root word of “intifada ,” mea

ns “to shake ( s.th.), sh ake of f ( s. th. fr om) , s hake out, d us t, d us t of f ( s. th. ); to k

no c k a sh e s [a s f

ro m a c ig are tte ], to make ( s.o.) shiver ( feve r); to re cover , rec uperate (fr om); to shake off one’s laziness.” Wehr, su pra , at 1157. 3 (“ AWA AM ” ). Al tho ug h th e re c or d in dic ate s th at A lmo nta se r i s n ot a ff ili ate d w ithAWA AM , Ne w York Po st re po rt e r C hu c k B e nn e tt s ou g ht inte r a lia to interview he r about the or g anization and its t-shirts. Almontaser wa nted to avoid the intervie w. DOE pr ess offic er D avid Cantor ins tr uc te d h e r t o p art ic ipate , b ut n ot t o a dd re ss t he t- sh ir ts. On August 3, 2007, Benne tt interviewed A lmontaser by telephone w ith DOE press of fice r Melody Mey er on the line. Almontaser told B ennett that she w as not conne cted to AWAAM and that AWAAM had nothing to do with KGI A. When Be nnett questioned her about the mea

ning of the Ar abic wor d “intifada ,” Almontaser acc urate ly

explained that the root of the wor d means “shakingoff.” She also stated that the wor d has bee n associate d with violence a nd the 1 Palestinian/I srae li conflict and e mphasized that she would never aff iliate herse lf with an
o r g an iz ati o nth at c o n d o n e s v io le n c e . M e y e r inte r je c te d o n ly o n c e d ur in gth e c a ll to e mp h a s iz e that Almontaser doe s not believe in violence . I mmediately afte r the intervie w, Meyer c alled Almontaser to tell her

that she did a g ood job. The ne x t day , the Ne w York Po st r ananart i c l e e n t i t l e d “ C i ty P r i n c i p a l i s ‘ R e v o l t i n g . ’ ” It featured a picture of

Almontaser with the c aption, “F uror: The Pro-violence shirt is being4

de fe nd e d b y

Pr inc ipa l D e bb ie Al monta se r ( a bo ve ). ” Th e art ic le a sse rt e d th at “ [a]c tiv ist s w ith tie s to the pr inc ipa l of

the c ity ’s c on tr ov e rs ia l ne w Ara bic -t he me d s c ho ol a

re ha wk ingT- sh ir

ts that g lorify

Palestinian terror ” and that Almontaser “downplay ed the sig nificanc e of the T-shirts.” The district cour

t found that the Ne w York Po st corr ectly

attributed to Almontaser he r explanation that the root of the wor d “intifada ” mea ns “shakingoff,” that the word ha s “deve lop[ ed] a neg ative connotation due to the uprising in the Pale stinian-I srae li area s,” and that
s h e “ [ d i dn ’ t ] b e l i e v e th e i n t e n t i o ni s t o h av e an y o f th atk i n d o f [ v i o l e n c e ] i nN e wY o r

k C i ty . ” It is undisputed by

the par ties that the pape r incorre ctly and misleading ly

added the phrase “and shakingoff oppr ession” to Almontaser’ s statement, “I think [ the t-shirts are ] pretty much an opportunity

for g irls to ex press that they are part of N ew Yor

k City society .” The Ne w York

Po st and other media subseque ntly

published stories and letter s to the editor cha rac terizing the state ments attributed to Almontaser by the Ne w York

Po st a s a de fe ns e of vio le nc e a g a ins t I sr a e l. Wi thi n d ay s, the De puty Ma y or fo r E du c atio n a

nd Commun ity De ve lop me nt, De nn is Wa lc ott , me t w ithAl monta se r o n b e ha lf of DO E Ch anc e llo r Joe l K le in and insisted on her r esig nation. Under pressure from DOE officia ls, Almontaser issued an
a po logy dr a ft e d b y

the DO E a

nd re signe d f

ro m he r p os iti on

a s K GIA’ s a c tin gint e ri m pr inc ipa l. On Octobe r 16, 2007, Almontaser applied for

the position of permane nt principal of KGIA. Two day s later, TheNe w York Tim es repor

ted that Cantor, spea

king on be half of Chance llor Klein, stated that Almontaser “would not be plac ed as pr incipal at the sc hool.” The of fi c e c on du c tin gthe fi rs t le ve l of re vie w f or the po sit ion

fo rw ard e d A lmo nta se r’ s a pp lic atio n to HiringManag er Rosema

ry Stuart with the notation that it was not recommende d. Stuart did not5

forwa rd Almontaser ’s application for the next level of re view. Almontaser sue d, alleg ing, inte r a lia , reta liation in viol ation of her First Amendme nt rig hts and infring ement of he r F ourtee nth Amendment rig ht to due proce ss. She moved for a preliminary

injunction: 1) requiringthe DOE to “ aff ord[] [her] a full and fair oppor tunity to be revie wed a

nd considere d for the position of [permane nt] principal at [ KGIA]” acc ordingto the applicable hiring regulations by a “disintere sted person,” and 2) “ enjoining a nd restra ining defe ndants from proc eedingpursuant to [these regulations] or to otherwise selec t, assign, or appoint a princ ipal at [KGI A] unti l [ she] is afforde d such consider ation.” See Fe d. R. Civ. P . 65. After a two-da y hear ing, the district court denie d the application. Almontaser appe aled.
DI SCU SSIO N A par ty seekinga pre liminary

injunction “must show irrepar able ha rm absent injunctive
re lie f, and

e ith e r a lik e lih oo d o f s uc c e ss o n th e me ri ts, or a se ri ou s q ue sti on g oin gto t

he me ri ts t o make them a

fair ground for

trial, with a bala

nce of hardships tipping de cidedly in plaintiff’s favor .” Louis Vuit ton Malletier v. Doone y &Bourke, I

nc. , 454 F.3d 108, 113- 14 (2d Cir. 2006). In light of the DOE’s January 2008 hire of a

perma nent principa l for KGIA, Almontaser se eks an injunction “alter[ing], rathe r than maintain[ing], the status quo,” and must meet the mor e ri g or ou s st and ard

of de mon str atin ga

“ c le ar” or

“ su bs tanti a l” sh ow ingof

a lik e lih oo d o f s uc c e ss on the merits. Tom Doherty Assocs., I nc. v. Saban E

ntm’t, Inc. , 60 F.3d 27, 33- 34 (2d Cir. 1995). “The district court has wide discretion in deter mining whe ther to g rant a preliminary injunction, and this Court reviews [its ] determination only for a buse of discr etion.” Grand River6

Enter. Six Nations, Lt d. v. Pryor , 481 F.3d 60, 66 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (interna l quotation marks omitted). A district court abuse s its dis cre tion when it rests its decision on a cle arly err oneous finding of fa ct or make s an er ror of law. Id. Whil e “ the F ir st A me ndme nt p ro te c ts a pu bli c
e mpl oye e ’s ri g ht, in c e rt a in c ir c ums tanc e s, to s pe ak a s a c iti zen a dd re ssi ngmatte rs of

pu bli c
c on c e rn ,” the Sup re me Court ha s c lari fi e d th at “ wh e n p ub lic e mpl oye e s ma ke state me nts pursuant to their off

icial duties, the employ ees a re not spea

king a s citiz ens for

First Amendme nt purposes, a

nd the Constitut ion does not insulate their communications from employ er discipline.” Garce tti v. Ceballos , 547 U.S. 410, 417, 421 (2006). B a se d o n th e re c or d at th is s ta g e of the lit ig atio n, we c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did not abuse its discretion by denying A lmontaser’s a

pplication for injunctive r elief. The district court found that Almontaser’s state ments to the Ne w York Po st “we re ma

nifestly made in her officia l capa city ” and the ref ore not c onstitut ionally

protec ted. It conseque ntly conclude d that she failed to de monstrate a likelihood that she w ould succe ed on the mer its of her F irst Amendment reta liation claim. Assuming that the thre at of irr epar able injury was pre sent, the district court noted that the DOE press off ice dire cted Almontase r to speak w ith Benne tt, and structure d and
oversa w her participation. Although Almontaser ’s explanation about the meaningof the wor d “intifada ” “f

ell outside the topics on which she ha d been dir ecte d to speak,” the district court fo un d th at th is e xplanatio n w a s n e ve rt he le ss m a de purs ua

nt t o h e r r ole a s K GIA’ s a c tin gint e ri m principal. This findingwas not an a buse of discr etion. The district cour

t also found that eve n if Almontaser’ s speec h to the Ne w York Po st was
c on sti tut ion a lly

pr ote c te d, he r r e mov a l a s inte ri m pr inc ipa l at K GIA a nd the DO E’ s d e c isi on

to7

no t f or wa rd he r a pp lic atio n a ft e r S tua

rt ’s re vie w w a s ju sti fi e d und e r t he ba lanc ingte st u se d to deter mine constitutional li mitations on publ ic employ ees’ speec h set forth in Picke ring v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205 , 391 U.S. 563 (1968). Having c oncluded that the district c ourt did not abuse its discretion when it found that Almontaser’s spe ech w as not protec ted, we ne ed not addre ss this finding. Nor a re w e now c alled upon to addr ess the more complex is sue pr e se nte d b y

thi s c a se , n ame ly , whe the r a pu bli c e mpl oye e , who is r e qu ir e d b y he r e mpl oye r t o sp e ak to the pr e ss a s a

c on dit ion

of he r e mpl oy

me nt, may

be sa nc tio ne d f

or sp e akin ga c c ur ate ly when he r statement is, as he r employ er know s, inacc urate ly repor ted and then misconstrue d by the pr e ss. We b e lie ve the iss ue is b e st a dd re sse d in the fi rs t in sta

nc e by the dis tr ic t c ourt
. Th e De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s r e qu e st c os ts f

ro m A lmo nta se r i n li g ht o f t he “ e qu iti e s” sa id t o fa vo r t he m. We de ny

thi s r e qu e st a s se lf

-e vid e ntl y fr ivo lou s.

CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, we AFF I RM the district court’s orde r of De cembe r 5, 2007, denying the preliminary

injunction moti on.