Opinion ID: 2402642
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Anemone's Insubordination

Text: The record contains undisputed evidence of Anemone's insubordination and the resulting tension between Anemone and his superiorstension that predated the Bauer/Plasser investigation, let alone the New York Times article, and only escalated thereafter. First, there is uncontroverted evidence of a history of complaints regarding Casalecomplaints that Anemone admittedly failed to investigate and, indeed, dismissed on the ground that Nick wasn't hired to make friends. Anemone Dep. at 77. Anemone's failure to respond to complaints with respect to his deputy's conduct in these past instances was exacerbated by his failure to direct Casale to cooperate with the OIG investigation, despite clear knowledge that Casale was refusing to provide the OIG with the information it sought. Second, Anemone routinely disregarded the chain of command. For example, Lapp explicitly informed Anemone in January 2003 that [s]he wanted to determine the avenues of investigation that would be pursued in the future and that there would be drastic action for non-compliance. Id. at 47. However, despite this clear directive, Anemone ignored her express instruction to turn the Bauer/Plasser investigation over to the OIG. Instead and construing the record in the light most favorable to himAnemone at best acceded to and then actively participated in Casale's continued contacts with the Queens DA's office without Lapp's knowledge: in his own words, Anemone told [Lapp] what I thought she needed to know and nothing more. Id. at 392. Third, Anemone either recklessly misled or outright lied to his superiors and the Queens DA's office throughout March 2003, until he was compelled to provide testimony to the OIG on March 27, with regard to the existence of a confidential informant. Lapp, Dellaverson, and Ryan, as well as Daly from the OIG, each testified that Anemone told him or her personally that there was a confidential informant providing information regarding the Bauer/Plasser investigation. Anemone does not seriously dispute this testimony, conceding that he told Lapp and Dellaverson that there was a confidential informant, and that he may have used the term with Ryan and Daly as well. Anemone has since admitted that there was no confidential informant in the Bauer/Plasser investigation. He now claims these references were a mistake or alternatively reflected a belief that a confidential informantwhether Dellaverson, Trimarchi, or perhaps someone elseactually existed. However, given these repeated references, in conjunction with Anemone's evasive behavior in not directing Casale to cooperate with the OIG and his admitted attempt to create a paper trail with Casale to cover his tracks, any reasonable jury would necessarily conclude that, at best, Anemone was recklessly misleading his superiors and co-workers throughout the time in which the OIG was attempting to investigate the Bauer/Plasser allegations. The evidence of Anemone's deception of Dellaverson is particularly telling. In March 2003, Anemone and Casale were in [Dellaverson's] office ... talking about how can [he] help them delay the Inspector General from bringing Casale in for testimony so they can get the confidential informant, the CI, who's in the wind, to testify. Dellaverson Dep. at 286. But as Anemone argues in his briefing to this Court, Dellaverson himself was this confidential informant. See Appellant's Br. at 14. As Anemone testified, Gary Dellaverson was the key guy. Anemone Dep. at 435. Of course, it is a disputed issue of fact whether Dellaverson indicated to Anemone that the Bauer/Plasser allegations should be investigated, and we resolve that dispute in favor of Anemone for the purpose of this appeal. Nevertheless, Anemone's undisputed referencing of a confidential informant to Dellaverson while Dellaverson was himself the key, putative confidential informant, as indicated in Anemone's briefing to this Court and in his deposition testimonywas clearly misleading. As Anemone himself testified, even before he spoke to the Times, he believed his job was in jeopardy. The record is clear and undisputed that, in fact, Anemone was right. Mt. Healthy provides a defense where a government employer can show that, even assuming an improper, retaliatory motivation, it would have taken the same adverse action against an employee in the absence of such motivation. See Scott, 344 F.3d at 288. We have little difficulty concluding as a matter of law that the Defendants in this case established their entitlement to the Mt. Healthy defense.