Saetta v. Raynor

Background

Joseph Saetta brought claims against Terrance Raynor, George Latimer, the Westchester County Department of Public Safety, Westchester County, and Corinne Pascariu-Costo. The complaint alleged that Saetta was appointed to the Westchester County Police Department on October 30, 2023, in a probationary capacity. On December 6, 2023, Saetta and another officer stopped Pascariu-Costo for a traffic violation. After Pascariu-Costo displayed a wallet containing a small police shield and a police-union card, Saetta issued her a ticket for a minor traffic infraction.

Pascariu-Costo later complained to the Department. Saetta alleged that he was told the complaint was being reviewed and that his probationary employment might be ended. He was terminated on January 12, 2024. According to the complaint, Saetta was told that the reason was issuing a ticket to someone who had shown a police-union card.

Saetta alleged that, between December 6, 2023, and January 12, 2024, he had many conversations about police discretion, police-union cards, and the policy against issuing tickets to people who displayed such cards. He claimed that this speech was protected activity and that defendants retaliated against him. He asserted First Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing lawsuits for certain constitutional-rights violations by people acting under state law. He also asserted claims under New York Civil Service Law § 75-B, defamation, defamation per se, and interference with business relations.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-supported factual allegations as true and views reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, but it does not accept legal conclusions or unsupported statements as facts.

First Amendment Claims

For a public-employee First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege, among other things, that he spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern and that the speech substantially motivated the adverse employment action. The court noted that speech made as part of an employee’s official duties is not speech as a private citizen.

The court found that the complaint’s only factual allegation about Saetta’s speech was that he had “many conversations” with Department members, police-union members, public officials, members of the public, family, friends, and acquaintances. The complaint did not specify whom Saetta spoke to, when the conversations occurred, or what he said. Because of that lack of detail, the court could not determine whether Saetta spoke as a private citizen or as a public employee. The court therefore dismissed the First Cause of Action and Second Cause of Action for alleged First Amendment violations without prejudice.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court dismissed Saetta’s Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action—covering New York Civil Service Law § 75-B, defamation, defamation per se, and interference with business relations—without prejudice to recommencing those claims in state court.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Saetta’s First Amendment claims and state-law claims without prejudice. Saetta was granted leave to file an amended complaint by May 30, 2025. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. If Saetta failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 26.