King v. City of New York

Background

Andy King, a former New York City Council member, alleged that the Council and various Council members and staffers expelled him because of his Christian faith and opposition to LGBT-related policies. The defendants argued that the expulsion followed ethics investigations and charges involving alleged retaliation against staff, a hostile work environment, misuse of Council resources, reimbursement problems, an incident involving a Gay Pride photograph, harassment of a staffer, a kickback allegation, and failure to comply with earlier sanctions.

The City Council first imposed a 30-day unpaid suspension, a $15,000 fine, loss of committee memberships, and an independent monitor for King’s office. After later proceedings, the Council voted on October 5, 2020, to expel him. King sued under federal and New York law, seeking damages, legal fees and costs, and reinstatement. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states legally sufficient claims.

Federal claims

The court dismissed King’s First Amendment free-speech retaliation claim. It held that legislative investigations, hearings, recommendations, and related actions that merely set an expulsion in motion generally did not violate the First Amendment because they did not prevent King from speaking, voting, or serving his constituents while he remained on the Council. The court treated the full Council votes imposing sanctions and expelling King as the potentially actionable conduct, but found that the complaint did not plausibly connect those votes to King’s anti-LGBT speech. The court instead found that the alleged ethics violations and the votes by many Council members undermined the claimed causal connection; allegations that Council members acted together or feared political retaliation were conclusory.

The court also dismissed the free-exercise claim. It found that the allegations showed opposition to King’s political views on LGBT issues, but did not plausibly show hostility toward his Christian faith or religious practice. The court dismissed both procedural due process theories. King had no constitutionally protected property interest in his elected Council seat, and the disciplinary proceedings gave him notice and opportunities to defend himself before the sanctions and expulsion.

The court dismissed King’s class-of-one equal-protection claim because the Supreme Court has barred that type of claim in the public-employment context. It dismissed his class-wide selective-enforcement claim because the complaint did not identify similarly situated people who received more favorable treatment because of their religious beliefs. The substantive due process claim was dismissed because the complaint relied on more specific constitutional claims. The malicious-abuse-of-process claim under federal law was dismissed because the Second Circuit does not allow that claim to produce liability under Section 1983 in a civil case. The conspiracy claim was dismissed because King did not provide particularized facts showing a conspiracy and because the alleged conspirators were all part of the same public entity under the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine. Finally, the claim against the City based on an official policy or custom was dismissed because King had not plausibly alleged a constitutional violation.

State claims

The court dismissed King’s claims under the New York Constitution and his New York common-law abuse-of-process claim because he admitted that he had not complied with New York’s notice-of-claim requirement. The court rejected his argument that a public-interest exception excused compliance, finding that his suit sought redress for his own injuries rather than relief for a similarly situated class.

The court dismissed King’s New York City Human Rights Law claim because he did not adequately plead a discrimination claim under the required burden-shifting framework. In particular, the complaint did not adequately allege that King was competent to perform the relevant job or that the circumstances of his expulsion supported an inference of discrimination.

Disposition

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over King’s Article 78 claim after dismissing all claims over which the federal court had original jurisdiction. It dismissed that claim without prejudice. The court otherwise granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the case, and did not add a prejudice designation to the other dismissals.