Saetta v. Raynor

Background

Joseph Saetta sued Terrance Raynor, George Latimer, the Westchester County Department of Public Safety, Westchester County, and Corinne Pascariu-Costo. He brought claims under Section 1983, a federal statute that allows suits for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state law, alleging retaliation for protected speech under the First Amendment. He also brought claims under New York Civil Service Law § 75-B, defamation, defamation per se, and interference with business relations.

According to the complaint, Saetta was appointed to the Westchester County Police Department in a probationary capacity on October 30, 2023. On December 6, 2023, he and another officer stopped Pascariu-Costo for a traffic matter. She allegedly displayed a small police shield and a police-union card, but Saetta issued her a ticket for a minor traffic infraction. Pascariu-Costo then complained to the department. Saetta alleged that he was terminated on January 12, 2024, for issuing a ticket to someone who had displayed a police-union card.

Saetta alleged that, between December 6, 2023, and January 12, 2024, he had many conversations with department members, police-union members, public officials, members of the public, family, friends, and acquaintances about police discretion and the department’s policy against issuing tickets to people who displayed police-union cards. He characterized those conversations as protected speech and alleged that his termination was retaliation for them.

Defendants’ Motion

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Under that rule, a complaint must contain enough factual matter to make a claim plausible, and the court generally accepts well-supported factual allegations as true while not accepting bare legal conclusions.

First Amendment Claims

The court explained that a public employee claiming First Amendment retaliation must show, among other things, that the employee spoke as a citizen about a matter of public concern and that the speech was a substantial reason for the adverse employment action. The complaint must also provide facts supporting the required connection between the speech and the employment action.

The court held that Saetta’s allegations were too general to state a First Amendment claim. The complaint did not identify the people to whom Saetta spoke, when the conversations occurred, or what he specifically said. As a result, the court could not determine whether Saetta spoke as a private citizen or as a public employee. The court dismissed the First and Second Causes of Action without prejudice.

State-Law Claims

Because the Section 1983 claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims in the same federal case. The court dismissed the Third through Sixth Causes of Action—under New York Civil Service Law § 75-B, defamation, defamation per se, and interference with business relations—without prejudice to recommencing them in state court.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Saetta’s First Amendment and state-law claims without prejudice. The court granted Saetta leave to file an amended complaint by May 30, 2025. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. If Saetta did not file one by the deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice.