Opinion ID: 780508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiff's Ultimate Burden of Establishing Discrimination

Text: 39 Once the employer produces evidence of legitimate reasons for its actions, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the real reason for the adverse employment decision was discrimination. Although plaintiff is not required to show that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence, evidence of pretext may help plaintiff carry his ultimate burden on this final stage of the McDonnell Douglas analysis. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089. 40 As noted above, defendants have established legitimate reasons for the 1997-1999 denials of promotions but not for the 1999 transfer. Accordingly, our analysis on the final stage of the McDonnell Douglas framework is limited to plaintiff's claims of illegally denied promotions. 41 Mandell presented evidence suggesting that defendants' reliance on plaintiff's letter to Legislator Postal as a reason for denying plaintiff promotions is pretext. Legislator Postal and her assistant, who handles Postal's correspondence, submitted affidavits stating that they never showed plaintiff's letter to anyone or copied it, and that their practice generally is to treat all incoming correspondence as confidential. Plaintiff similarly denies ever forwarding a copy of his letter to anyone. From this proffer, a trier of fact could find, contrary to defendants' assertions, that Gallagher did not see the letter until the commencement of this law suit and that defendants may therefore be using the letter as a pretext to cover up a discriminatory motive. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). 42 Further, even though plaintiff does not present evidence directly contradicting defendants' remaining stated reasons for not promoting him — plaintiff's 1997 interview with Gallagher and, with respect to the 1997 round of promotions, chiefs' recommendations of Hamann and Hamann's greater knowledge of the precinct — this failure is not fatal to plaintiff's claims. We have previously cautioned that an employer may not rely solely on wholly subjective and unarticulated standards as a basis for its promotion decisions. Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. Of Educ., 243 F.3d 93, 104 (2d Cir.2001). An employer's explanation of its legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons must be clear and specific. Meiri, 759 F.2d at 997. Here, Gallagher's explanation of the negative impact of the 1997 interview is couched in vague and general terms since the positive image that, in his view, plaintiff failed to project is not described in any concrete terms. Given plaintiff's evidence of Gallagher's pro-Christian statements at official police functions, a reasonable factfinder could believe that the sought-after positive image incorporated Christian religious affiliation and that Gallagher refused to promote plaintiff because plaintiff did not meet that requirement. Gallagher admittedly knew that plaintiff was Jewish and therefore, even without knowing the other candidates' religion, could have chosen to avoid plaintiff as the one known non-Christian candidate. 43 Defendants are on more solid ground in relying on police chiefs' recommendations of Hamann and on Hamann's prior knowledge of the precinct as a basis for Gallagher's decision to promote him rather than plaintiff in 1997. Plaintiff has not produced any evidence of anti-Semitic comments or conduct by the five chiefs who submitted recommendations to Gallagher. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, his own and Rabbi Wartenberg's generalized descriptions of pervasive anti-Semitism within the department are not sufficient to support an inference that those five police chiefs' recommendations were in fact tainted by anti-Semitic sentiment. But even here the ultimate decision to accept these recommendations was Gallagher's. Because, as discussed above, plaintiff has presented evidence indicating Gallagher's pro-Christian bias, we cannot conclude that proof of the police chiefs' recommendations entitles defendants to judgment as a matter of law. 44 In sum, we think that based on the evidence submitted in support of plaintiff's prima facie case and on plaintiff's evidence of pretext, a reasonable juror could find that defendants' 1997-1999 decisions not to promote plaintiff to the rank of inspector were motivated by religious discrimination. We must therefore vacate the dismissal of plaintiff's claims of discriminatory failure to promote under Title VII and the Human Rights Law. 45 IV 42 U.S.C. § 1983: First Amendment Retaliation 46 Analysis turns to plaintiff's claim of First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mandell alleges that, by failing to promote him to the rank of inspector in 1997-1999 and by transferring him to the position of executive officer in 1999, defendants illegally retaliated for his public criticism of the department before the County's Public Safety Committee in 1987 and for his 1992 interview with Newsday. The district court summarily rejected this claim for lack of proof of causal connection between the speech and the alleged adverse employment actions. On appeal, defendants additionally insist that plaintiff's speech does not enjoy constitutional protection, that he suffered no adverse employment actions, and that he failed to establish a basis for the County's liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct.2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Further, they maintain that Gallagher is entitled to qualified immunity. A. Retaliation in General 47 Although a public employee does not relinquish First Amendment rights to comment on matters of public interest by virtue of government employment, these rights are not absolute, because the government, as an employer, has a legitimate interest in regulating the speech of its employees to promote the efficiency of its public services. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 140, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968)). The extent of permissible government regulation of speech under these circumstances is determined by balancing the interest of the employee, in his role as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern against the interest of the government, in its role as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the services it performs through its employees. Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102, 109-10 (2d Cir.1999). 48 Before reaching this balancing test a court must be satisfied that a plaintiff claiming First Amendment retaliation has demonstrated that: (1) his speech addressed a matter of public concern, (2) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection existed between the speech and the adverse employment action, so that it can be said that his speech was a motivating factor in the determination. Id. at 110; see also Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir.2001) (describing elements of First Amendment Retaliation claim). If the plaintiff produces evidence of these three elements, the government may nevertheless escape liability on either one of two separate rationales. One way the government may prevail is by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the protected speech. Morris, 196 F.3d at 110. Alternatively, the government may show that plaintiff's speech was likely to disrupt the government's activities, and the likely disruption was sufficient to outweigh the First Amendment value of plaintiff's speech. Locurto, 264 F.3d at 166. If the government relies on the latter rationale and the balance of interests indeed weighs in the government's favor, plaintiff may still succeed by proving that the adverse action was in fact motivated by retaliation rather than by fear of disruption. Id. B. Retaliation in This Case 49 Applying these principles to Mandell's case, we find wholly unpersuasive defendants' contention that plaintiff's 1987 Public Safety Committee testimony did not enjoy a constitutionally protected status because it was a disgruntled employee's complaint about his own promotional opportunities. Such characterization of Mandell's testimony finds no support in the record. As a general rule, speech on any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community is protected by the First Amendment. Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684. Plaintiff's testimony criticized the department's approach to fighting organized crime, its resistance to change, and its systemic racism and anti-Semitism. All these subjects are clearly matters of public concern. 50 Similarly meritless is defendants' contention that plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action. Adverse employment actions include both refusals to promote and demotions. Morris, 196 F.3d at 110. It is undisputed that defendants refused to promote plaintiff to the rank of an inspector, and that the 1999 transfer placed plaintiff in a position subordinate to the one he had previously held. 51 Again, defendants maintain plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his public criticism of the Suffolk County Police and the adverse employment decisions. Causation can be established either indirectly by means of circumstantial evidence, for example, by showing that the protected activity was followed by adverse treatment in employment, or directly by evidence of retaliatory animus. Id. at 110. We think Mandell adduced sufficient direct evidence of retaliatory animus to create a triable question of fact on this issue. Several reasons lead us to this result. 52 The 1988 letter expelling plaintiff from the Suffolk County PBA expressly stated that he was being removed for having branded the entire department as racist and anti-semites. This expulsion shows that, at least during the months following Mandell's testimony, a substantial number of police officers viewed the testimony as a betrayal of the department. An evaluation placed in plaintiff's personnel file in May 1988 contained negative comments and recommendations plainly brought on by that testimony. Specifically, Inspector Stewart wrote negatively about plaintiff and although the inspector did not recommend denial of plaintiff's next promotion — the non-discretionary promotion to the rank of a captain — he did emphasize that Mandell's attitude should be taken into account when placing him in any future assignment. Because this evaluation was placed in plaintiff's file, it could have reasonably impacted Mandell's career opportunities in the ensuing years. 53 Further, during the days following the Newsday interview, Chief Michel told plaintiff that he would have to learn to keep his mouth shut, and Chief Marcoe told him that his career might be adversely affected because of the baggage created by his 1987 testimony. The latter comment suggests that negative attitudes towards Mandell caused by that testimony lingered for at least five years. Because both Michel and Marcoe were among those chiefs who recommended candidates other than plaintiff for the 1997 promotion to inspector, a reasonable factfinder could find their comments indicate a retaliatory animus that influenced their decision not to recommend plaintiff. 54 Defendants urge that the substantial time lapse between plaintiff's speech and the adverse employment actions precludes a finding of causation. They correctly point out that to provide an independent basis for an inference of causation, temporal proximity must be significantly greater (meaning that the time lapse must be shorter than it is in this case). See, e.g., Morris, 196 F.3d at 113-14 (holding that absent other evidence of retaliatory motivation, no inference of causation follows from fact of adverse action occurring two years after speech). It should be noted that Morris, the case defendants primarily rely on, was an employment termination case. It makes logical sense that if an employer wishes to retaliate by firing an employee, he is likely to do so soon after the event. In a failure to promote case, however, the opportunities for retaliation do not necessarily immediately present themselves. Be that as it may, however, plaintiff here does not rely on temporal proximity as affirmative evidence of causation. He offers instead direct evidence of retaliatory animus discussed above. Further, some of plaintiff's evidence — namely, Inspector Stewart's evaluation and Chief Marcoe's 1992 reference to the baggage of the 1987 testimony — indicates that plaintiff's criticism of the Suffolk County Police may have had a lasting effect on plaintiff's career. In light of this evidence, we cannot conclude that the time lapse, though admittedly lengthy, conclusively establishes lack of causation. 55 Defendants also declare that an inference of causation is not justified because Gallagher said he was not aware of plaintiff's negative statements about the department until after the 1997 denial of promotion, and because plaintiff received one discretionary promotion after his 1987 testimony. Yet, a trier of fact does not have to believe Gallagher's denials of knowledge, since in making his 1997 promotion decision Gallagher consulted police chiefs who were aware of both the testimony and the interview. Further, Gallagher's denials of knowledge, even if truthful, are not dispositive because, as noted a moment ago, Gallagher's choice in 1997 was based on recommendations of police chiefs, two of whom had made statements indicative of retaliatory animus. Moreover, Gallagher's asserted lack of knowledge is irrelevant to the remaining denials of promotions and to the 1999 transfer decision, as Gallagher admittedly reviewed plaintiff's 1987 testimony shortly after the 1997 denial of promotion. 56 Nor does plaintiff's claim of retaliation fail because of his 1989 promotion to deputy inspector. First, no promotions followed the 1992 Newsday interview, the second instance of protected speech. Second, a reasonable juror could find that Commissioner Guido's administration in 1989 had a fairer and more merit-driven promotion policy than Gallagher's administration in 1997-1999. 57 As a consequence, we believe plaintiff submitted adequate proof to support a finding that his public criticism of the department affected defendant Gallagher's promotion and transfer decisions. 58 Finally, we reject defendants' argument that the state's interest in regulating Mandell's speech outweighed his interest in the speech simply because when he gave his Newsday interview he held the rank of deputy inspector. Defendants advanced no reason why the interview was likely to disrupt the department's operations, nor has our own review of the Newsday article revealed any basis for such a conclusion. See Lewis v. Cowen, 165 F.3d 154, 162 (2d Cir.1999) (The government bears the burden of demonstrating that the speech threatens to interfere with government operations.). C. Municipal Liability 59 A municipal entity may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the alleged constitutional violation was caused by the entity's policy or custom. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. The policy or custom requirement, however, is intended simply to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of its employees, in order that municipal liability be limited to conduct for which the municipality is actually responsible. Dangler v. New York City Off Track Betting Corp., 193 F.3d 130, 142 (2d Cir.1999). Thus, if the challenged action is directed by an official with final policymaking authority, the municipality may be liable even in the absence of a broader policy. See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 481-83, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986) (Municipal liability attaches only where the decisionmaker possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered.). Here, plaintiff challenges as retaliatory employment decisions made by Gallagher, who, as the Suffolk County police commissioner, had authority to set department-wide personnel policies. Gallagher's position provides a sufficient basis for holding the County liable for his adverse decisions with respect to plaintiff.