Rosati v. Long Island Railroad

Background

Steven Rosati, a former Long Island Railroad conductor, sued the Long Island Railroad, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, and Patrick Foye. He asserted retaliation and conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, along with various state-law claims.

Rosati alleged that he operated politically focused social-media pages, podcasts, and online videos while off duty and without using Long Island Railroad equipment. He said he supported former President Donald J. Trump and other conservative candidates and causes. The Long Island Railroad began an internal investigation into his social-media activity on January 21, 2021, suspended him without pay, and later terminated his employment on May 11, 2021. Rosati alleged that he was terminated because of his social-media posts. He also relied on a statement by Patrick Foye at a public Metropolitan Transportation Authority board meeting that Rosati’s conduct at the Capitol should be investigated and was being investigated.

Federal Claims

The defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

The court granted dismissal of the Section 1983 claim against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Long Island Railroad. Rosati attempted to impose municipal liability under the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services, which requires facts showing that a government entity’s policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court held that the complaint’s assertions about an “official policy” were conclusory. It did not identify the policy, the entity that adopted it, or how the policy caused the alleged constitutional violation.

The court also held that the specific social-media and workplace policies Rosati discussed in his opposition papers were not properly before the court. The First Amended Complaint did not attach, quote, or adequately rely on those policies, and a party cannot add new factual allegations through motion papers.

The Section 1983 claim against Foye was dismissed because the First Amended Complaint did not allege that he was personally involved in Rosati’s suspension or termination. The court also declined to consider factual allegations about Foye that appeared for the first time in Rosati’s opposition memorandum.

The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was dismissed because the First Amended Complaint did not allege facts showing a conspiracy motivated by class-based discrimination. The court noted that it was unclear whether political affiliation qualifies as a protected class under Section 1985 and held that, even assuming it did, Rosati had not alleged class-wide discrimination. The complaint also did not connect his asserted race, Italian heritage, or union membership to the suspension, termination, or alleged conspiracy.

Because a Section 1986 claim depends on a valid Section 1985 claim, the court dismissed the Section 1986 claim as well.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Replead

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it declined to hear the related state-law claims in the same federal case.

The court stated that Rosati may seek leave to replead his Section 1983 claims by September 13, 2022. Any request had to explain how a proposed Second Amended Complaint would correct the identified deficiencies and include a marked draft. The court’s conclusion granted the motion to dismiss the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.