Lopez v. Sheriff Louis Falco and County of Rockland

Background

William Lopez, a former corrections officer employed by the County of Rockland, sued Sheriff Louis Falco and the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants retaliated against him for exercising First Amendment rights connected to union membership, leadership, grievance activity, and support for a candidate who opposed Falco.

Lopez alleged that he helped file and review union grievances, participated in union committees, advocated about overtime, and opposed policies involving drug testing and body cameras. He also alleged that Falco knew of his union activity and reacted negatively to the filing of grievances. After Lopez suffered work-related injuries, the defendants allegedly required him to provide a medical clearance before returning to work, placed him on absent-without-leave status, suspended his salary, stopped further health-insurance contributions, and later terminated his employment under New York Civil Service Law § 71. Lopez also alleged that Falco denied him a retirement badge.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint plausibly states a legal claim. The court considered the grievances, medical authorization form, and arbitration decisions that Lopez referenced or relied on in the amended complaint. It declined to consider two other documents because they were not incorporated into the complaint and the defendants did not establish a basis for judicial notice.

Lopez brought one claim: First Amendment retaliation based on his alleged freedom of association as an active union member. The court held that a public employee bringing this type of claim must show that the relevant speech or associational activity involved a matter of public concern. The court rejected Lopez’s argument that union activity automatically satisfies that requirement.

Protected Activity

The court held that Lopez’s support for Falco’s opponent in the 2015 sheriff’s election was protected First Amendment activity. The court concluded, however, that Lopez’s other alleged union activities—including filing or assisting with grievances, participating in committees, negotiating over overtime, and opposing workplace policies—concerned employment conditions and internal labor-management disputes rather than matters of public concern. The court also held that those activities were connected to the functions of Lopez’s employment, so he did not act as a private citizen for purposes of those activities.

Adverse Actions and Causation

The court maintained its earlier conclusion that suspending Lopez’s pay and health insurance qualified as an adverse employment action. It also concluded that the amended allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to treat denial of the retirement badge as a potentially adverse action because the badge allegedly allowed former officers to maintain personal weapons and receive professional courtesies.

The court nevertheless found that Lopez failed to plausibly allege causation—the required connection between protected activity and retaliation. The only activity the court recognized as protected was Lopez’s support for Falco’s opponent in 2015, at least seven years before the alleged suspension of pay and denial of the retirement badge. The court found that this time gap was too long to support causation based on timing. It also found that Lopez’s allegations about more favorable treatment of other officers did not show that those officers were similarly situated in all material respects. Finally, the court held that allegations that Falco was infuriated, upset, or bore a grudge were too general to establish a causal connection.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court stated that this was the second adjudication of Lopez’s claims on the merits and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.