Fierro v. The City of New York, Department of Education

Background

Joseph Fierro, a teacher employed by the New York City Department of Education (DOE), sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the DOE retaliated against him by denying him promotions because he had previously pursued age- and disability-discrimination claims against the DOE.

Fierro applied for approximately 642 vacant principal and assistant-principal positions between 2018 and 2019 and interviewed for approximately 85 of them. At each interview he attended, at least one other candidate received a higher interview score. Fierro testified that some interviewers questioned whether he expected to receive a position because of his prior lawsuits. The opinion states, however, that his prior age- and disability-discrimination complaints did not appear in the interviewers’ notes.

The case originally included other claims and another defendant. The court had previously dismissed Fierro’s First Amendment retaliation claim and his gender-discrimination claim under Section 1983. Fierro later withdrew his claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws and his claims against Tasha Ferguson. The remaining claim was retaliation under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause based on Fierro’s earlier age- and disability-discrimination lawsuits.

Legal Standard

The DOE moved for summary judgment under Rule 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion, but that party must identify admissible evidence—not speculation or conclusory statements—supporting the claim.

Because Fierro sued a municipal entity under Section 1983, he had to establish municipal liability, often called Monell liability. This requires evidence that an official policy or customary practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. A municipality generally cannot be held liable merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that it did not need to and would not decide the substance of Fierro’s Equal Protection retaliation claim because he failed to establish municipal liability. Fierro pursued two theories: that the DOE had a persistent and widespread practice of retaliating against employees who complained about age or disability discrimination, and that DOE policymakers deliberately failed to train or supervise employees.

Alleged Policy or Custom

The court held that Fierro offered no evidence of an institutional policy or customary practice of retaliation. His argument relied primarily on the large number of positions for which he applied and interviewed, his rejections, and comments that some interviewers allegedly made about his prior litigation. The court found those circumstances insufficient to show a practice that was widespread and persistent throughout the DOE.

The court emphasized that repeated rejection of one person does not by itself establish a municipal policy or custom. It also said that Fierro could not create a factual dispute simply by relying on his own deposition testimony. In the court’s view, evidence concerning Fierro’s particular experiences did not show similar conduct involving other people or establish that senior DOE policymakers knew about and accepted such conduct.

Failure to Train or Supervise

The court also rejected Fierro’s alternative theory that DOE policymakers failed to train or supervise employees with deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference requires evidence that a policymaking official knew of a constitutional injury or risk and consciously failed to take appropriate action. The court found no evidence about DOE training, notice that its training was deficient, or a deliberate choice by DOE decision-makers to use training likely to cause constitutional violations.

Disposition

Judge Rearden granted the DOE’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, cancel deadlines, and close the case. The opinion expressly states that the court did not reach the substance of Fierro’s Equal Protection retaliation claim.