Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19870911_0040322.C02.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-08-18 03:32:01
Document Index: 760453517

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 290', '§ 1983', '§ 1981', '§ 7801']

WALTER D. KIRKLAND, APPELLANT
CITY OF PEEKSKILL, GEORGE E. POTAKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLASS ACTION REPRESENTATIVE, WILLIAM F. WILLIAMS, JAMES MADAFARI, SALVATORE PREZIOSO AND EDWARD CREEM, APPELLEES
Appeal from decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Morris E. Lasker, Judge, dismissing former police commissioner's complaint, under 42 U.S.C. § § 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, of racial discrimination during employment and of retaliatory discharge on grounds of res judicata. Affirmed.
Walter D. Kirkland, former Police Commissioner of the City of Peekskill ("the City"), appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Morris E. Lasker, Judge, granting the City, various Peekskill officials, and a consultant formerly employed by the City, dismissal of Kirkland's complaint on res judicata grounds. See Kirkland v. City of Peekskill, 651 F. Supp. 1225 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). Kirkland's amended complaint alleged denial of his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § § 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986, denial of his constitutional rights under the Constitution of the State of New York, denial of rights to equal opportunity and to freedom from retaliation in violation of the Human Rights Law of the State of New York, N.Y. Exec. Law § § 290-301 (McKinney 1982), and libel and slander by specific acts of two of the defendants and by the conspiratorial acts of the defendant class.
The district court held that Kirkland's federal court action was precluded as res judicata on two grounds: first, that under University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 106 S. Ct. 3220, 92 L. Ed. 2d 635 (1986), the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) that Kirkland's discrimination claim lacked merit barred the action, 651 F. Supp. at 1228-31, and second, that state court review of the adverse NYSDHR determination was also a bar, 651 F. Supp. at 1231, under Mitchell v. National Broadcasting Co., 553 F.2d 265, 273-74 (2d Cir. 1977); see also Fay v. South Colonie Central School District, 802 F.2d 21, 28 (2d Cir. 1986). See generally Migra v. Warren City School District board of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 77 n.1, 79 L. Ed. 2d 56, 104 S. Ct. 892 (1984). We affirm.
The procedural history of this case must be recounted in order to understand the issues. In September 1983 Kirkland had filed an earlier complaint in United States District Court under 42 U.S.C. § § 1983, 1985, 1986, and 2000e (Title VII) alleging that the City of Peekskill and various city officials had discriminated against him because of his race and color by inducing him to accept employment with a false representation of salary, by requiring him alone among city department heads to relocate to Peekskill, denying him financial assistance for the move, and by denying him certain salary increases to which he was entitled. In January 1984 he filed a similar complain with the NYSDHR. Then, in May 1984, he filed a second complaint with the NYSDHR alleging that because of his prior complaints City officials had launched a retaliatory campaign of harassment against him-undermining his authority in the department, embarrassing and discrediting him by giving misleading information to the press about a prisoner's suicide while in custody, and hiring a consultant named as a defendant in this case, Sal Prezioso, to investigate him. Against Prezioso, Kirkland alleged the conveyance of false and derogatory information to a prospective employer.
In June 1984 Kirkland filed the present civil rights action in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York based on 42 U.S.C. § § 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. His amended complaint set forth substantially the same allegations of discrimination and retaliation as did his second NYSDHR complaint.
In October 1984 Judge Lasker dismissed without prejudice Kirkland's first federal complaint, filed in September 1983, on the basis that he had failed to exhaust the EEOC and state administrative remedies which are prerequisite to a Title VII action, and that his section 1983 complaints failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. See Kirkland v. Bianco, 595 F. Supp. 797 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Kirkland then filed a third NYSDHR complaint, also in October 1984, again charging that the City and its officials had carried on a campaign of harassment against him and had engaged in a conspiracy to deny him the right to continuing employment. In the course of investigating Kirkland's three complaints, the Division received sworn statements on Kirkland's behalf, met with Kirkland and his attorney to take his testimony concerning his allegations, contacted witnesses suggested by him, reviewed explanations provided by the City and by Kirkland of certain specific complaints, and examined portions of transcripts of depositions taken in connection with his federal actions and portions of the trial transcript from the hearing held in federal district court on his section 1984 application for injunctive relief.
Kirkland then instituted an Article 78 proceeding under N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. § § 7801-7806 (McKinney 1981) to review the NYSDHR's dismissal of his complaints. The Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed Kirkland's petition for review on August 8, 1986. Kirkland appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department; ...