Chinese American Citizens Alliance Greater New York v. New York City Department…

Background

In June 2018, the New York City Department of Education revised the admission policy for several specialized high schools. This case concerns a February 4, 2020 Town Hall meeting at James Madison High School in Brooklyn. The Department of Education imposed a blanket ban on signs at the meeting.

The plaintiffs—Chinese American Citizens Alliance Greater New York, Phillip Yan Hing Wong, Siu-Lin Linda Lam, George Lee, Xuhui Ni, and Lucas Liu—alleged that Asian-American attendees were selectively searched for signs or posters and denied entry. They sued the Department of Education, the City of New York, Police Officer Yergey Dym, Assistant Principal Jason Marino, and four John Does under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Their claims alleged violations of the First Amendment right to free speech, the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection, and the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. They also asserted parallel claims under the New York Constitution, assault and battery, and respondeat superior, a theory that may impose responsibility on an employer or principal for an employee’s conduct.

The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendants sought summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, and plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on their First Amendment claim. Magistrate Judge Gary Stein recommended granting defendants’ motion on the First Amendment claim and its state constitutional counterpart; granting it in part and denying it in part on the Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim and its state constitutional counterpart; and granting it on the remaining claims.

First Amendment claims

The plaintiffs objected to the recommendation that their First Amendment claim be dismissed. They argued that the sign ban should receive strict scrutiny and that a factual dispute existed about whether the restriction was reasonable.

Judge Kaplan adopted the conclusion that the Town Hall was a limited public forum. A limited public forum is government property opened for particular subjects or kinds of expression, rather than for general public debate. In such a forum, restrictions on the form or manner of speech need only be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral when they concern expression outside the forum’s limited category.

The court held that the sign ban was facially content-neutral because it restricted how people could communicate, not what they could say. It also held that the ban was reasonable because the City had a legitimate interest in conducting orderly meetings, signs could be visually disruptive, and attendees had other ways to express their views, including speaking at the meeting or protesting outside the school. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs had not identified evidence showing that the ban was enforced differently based on the content or viewpoint of the signs.

The court therefore granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim and the corresponding New York State Constitution claim. It denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment on those claims.

Equal-protection claims

The defendants objected to the recommendation that part of the equal-protection claims proceed. For a selective-enforcement claim, a plaintiff must show both that people were treated differently from similarly situated people and that the difference was motivated by an impermissible discriminatory purpose.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ testimony created a triable factual issue. Wong and Lam testified that they personally saw non-Asian attendees enter with signs. Lee and Liu testified that Lee and other Asian attendees were stopped and denied entry even though they did not have signs. If a jury credited that testimony, it could find that Asian and non-Asian attendees were treated differently despite being similarly situated in relevant respects.

The court acknowledged that video evidence appeared inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ description of events, but it did not capture all relevant events and therefore did not conclusively disprove the testimony. On summary judgment, the court could not decide witness credibility unless the testimony was so implausible that no reasonable juror could believe it. The court also treated as waived the defendants’ argument that any temporary unequal treatment was too minor to constitute a constitutional violation because the argument had not been presented to the magistrate judge.

Disposition

The court adopted the report and recommendation in full. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint was granted in all respects except: (1) the plaintiffs’ second cause of action alleging a Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection violation, to the extent based on selective enforcement and discriminatory application; and (2) the plaintiffs’ third cause of action alleging an equal-protection violation under the New York State Constitution, except to the extent that claim was brought against the City and the Department of Education under a respondeat superior theory. The plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment was denied. The opinion states that the remaining claims were dismissed through the defendants’ motion.