Buchanan v. Jonathan Darche

Background

Dane Buchanan, James Christopher Duerr, Nicole Napolitano, and Winsome Thelwell were former employees of New York City's Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). They alleged that they faced retaliation and harassment, ending in their November 2020 terminations, after raising concerns about CCRB policies and practices. Their allegations included concerns about access to police body-camera footage, a backlog of complaints, an agreement allowing police officers to turn off video during remote interviews, and Board decisions overturning investigative recommendations. They also alleged that they opposed discriminatory treatment and supported a coworker's discrimination complaint.

The plaintiffs sued the City of New York, the CCRB, and CCRB Executive Director Jonathan Darche in his official and individual capacities. Their claims included retaliation under the First Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a parallel claim under the New York Constitution, and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The defendants moved to dismiss the entire complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

First Amendment Claims Against Darche

The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged protected speech under the First Amendment. Their alleged statements concerned police misconduct oversight, agency accountability, complaint backlogs, and other matters of public concern. The court concluded that the pleadings did not establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs spoke only as employees performing their official duties. Their actual, day-to-day job responsibilities and the relationship between those responsibilities and their speech required a fact-based inquiry that could not be resolved before discovery.

The court also held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a causal connection between their speech and their terminations. The complaint described Darche's alleged threats to fire or demote employees after they criticized CCRB policies, as well as statements by Darche and General Counsel Matthew Kadushin showing anger about the plaintiffs' speech. The plaintiffs were then terminated on the same day, without prior notice, and were quickly disconnected from the agency's server. These allegations provided direct and circumstantial evidence of retaliation sufficient to survive dismissal.

The court also declined to dismiss the First Amendment claims against Darche based on qualified immunity at this stage. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Here, Darche's defense depended on the same unresolved factual questions about the plaintiffs' job responsibilities and whether their speech was made as citizens.

Claims Against the CCRB and City of New York

The court dismissed the CCRB as a defendant because New York City Charter § 396 generally requires actions against a city agency to be brought in the name of the City of New York, and the plaintiffs did not identify an exception allowing the CCRB to be sued here.

The court dismissed the First Amendment municipal-liability claim against the City. A municipal-liability claim under § 1983 requires a city policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation. The court reasoned that Darche's authority to make employment decisions for the CCRB did not, by itself, make him the final policymaker for the City of New York. Under the court's reading of the City Charter, the Commissioner of the Department of Citywide Administrative Services had final authority over citywide employment policy. Therefore, Darche's alleged personnel decisions could not be treated as official City policy for purposes of the claim pleaded.

New York Constitutional and Human-Rights Claims

The court dismissed the claim under Article I, Section 8 of the New York Constitution. It explained that plaintiffs generally cannot bring a separate state-constitutional free-speech claim when § 1983 provides a remedy for the same alleged conduct.

The court also dismissed the NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation claims. It concluded that some alleged incidents did not show that the plaintiffs opposed discriminatory conduct. Although the court found that Thelwell's complaints about the differing treatment of Black clerical workers and white investigators during the COVID-19 pandemic could potentially qualify as protected activity, the complaint did not adequately connect that incident to the later terminations. The plaintiffs' support for Carayannis's discrimination complaint likewise did not establish a causal connection; the alleged attempt to attend a meeting occurred about three months before the terminations, and the complaint alleged no additional direct or circumstantial evidence linking that event to the firings.

Disposition

Judge Stein granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The CCRB was dismissed from the action. The plaintiffs' claims under the New York Constitution, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL were dismissed, as was the municipal-liability claim against the City of New York. The plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claims against Darche were allowed to proceed. The court directed discovery to address the plaintiffs' functional job responsibilities, whether their speech was connected to those duties, and whether their speech led to their November 2020 terminations.