Longobardi v. City of New York

Background

Vincent Longobardi sued the City of New York and several city officials over his unsuccessful effort to obtain employment as an Environmental Police Officer with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. He alleged that officials denied or delayed his firearm permits and firearm, conducted psychological evaluations in connection with his employment application, and failed to give him written notice of his employment disqualification.

Longobardi alleged violations of the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments through claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986. He also asserted a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They also asserted that the claims were time-barred, although at oral argument they abandoned that defense except as to the Section 1986 claim.

Court’s reasoning

Due process

The court dismissed Longobardi’s procedural and substantive due process claims. Regarding the firearm permits, the court did not resolve whether Longobardi had a protected property interest in the pistol license, handgun, or rifle and shotgun permit. Instead, it held that he had adequate procedures to challenge the denial: he received notice, was told how to seek administrative review, pursued an appeal, and prevailed.

Regarding employment, the court held that a person seeking prospective government employment does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in obtaining the position. Because Longobardi had no such property interest, he was not constitutionally entitled to notice or an appeal concerning the termination of his application. The court also held that the alleged conduct was not sufficiently arbitrary, conscience-shocking, or without reasonable justification to support a substantive due process claim.

Equal protection

The court dismissed Longobardi’s equal-protection claim. He proceeded under a “class-of-one” theory, which requires a plaintiff to show that he was treated differently from people whose circumstances were nearly identical. The court found that Longobardi’s proposed comparison group—firearm-permit applicants who had not previously failed a psychological assessment for police employment—was materially different from him. As a result, he did not plausibly allege the required similarity.

Conspiracy

The court dismissed the claims under Sections 1985(3) and 1986. It applied the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, which generally treats officers, agents, and employees of one organization acting within their job duties as legally incapable of conspiring with one another. The court found that all defendants were employees or agents of the City of New York and that the alleged conduct concerned their employment duties.

The court also stated that Section 1985(3) creates a remedy for an underlying violation rather than an independent right, and that Section 1986 claims depend on a viable Section 1985 claim. In addition, the Section 1986 claim was independently time-barred because it was filed more than one year after the alleged conduct had ended, at the latest, on July 28, 2017.

Retaliation

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim. Longobardi alleged that officials denied his employment application because of letters he sent petitioning the government and raising matters of public concern. But the court noted that he was removed from the eligibility list on July 25, 2016, while the letters were dated July 6, 2017, and August 24, 2017. Because the alleged adverse action occurred before the letters, the complaint did not show a causal connection between the protected speech and the employment decision.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

The court dismissed the emotional-distress claim. Longobardi conceded that he had not met the required notice requirements. The court also stated that the alleged conduct was not sufficiently extreme or outrageous to support the claim against the individually named defendants.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion states that the Clerk of Court should close the motion. Because Longobardi had not previously amended his complaint, the court allowed him to seek leave to amend by letter, attaching a proposed amended complaint, by June 30, 2022, if amendment would not be futile.