Opinion ID: 765358
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Existence of a Genuine Dispute

Text: 28 Based on our ruling that a retaliatory discharge based solely on litigation instituted by one's spouse is actionable under the First Amendment, we must consider the defendants' contention that the plaintiff has not identified sufficient evidence to resist summary judgment rejecting such a claim. In this regard, the plaintiff need only create a genuine factual dispute. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Adler has accomplished this by a comfortable margin. 29 Adler has presented substantial evidence that his wife's lawsuit, not his politics, was the basis for his discharge. He demonstrated that her lawsuit was receiving media coverage unfavorable to the Pataki administration. One of his supervisors, in the weeks before his marriage, reportedly mentioned his wife's litigation and the embarrassment it was causing state officials. In that litigation, Adler's wife had won sanctions against state officials shortly before her husband was fired. Moreover, Adler has produced a memo, issued a week before his firing, declaring that there would be no further dismissals within his department. Adler's replacement, unlike Adler, was a Democrat. Also, Adler's replacement was not selected until after he was fired, thereby casting at least some doubt on the defendants' claim that the plaintiff was fired to make room for one of the Republican Governor's political allies. Finally, the plaintiff's evidence shows that several other high ranking OMRDD officials were not terminated despite their lack of connections to the Republican Party. 30 In short, while a finder of fact might ultimately determine that the defendants acted on the basis of a legitimate reason for firing the plaintiff, he has presented ample evidence, at this preliminary stage in the litigation, 7 to support his claim that the defendants acted against him solely in retaliation for his wife's litigation activity. Because such retaliation, if it occurred, is actionable under the First Amendment, the decision below must be reversed.