Welch v. City of Peekskill

Background

Tyrone Welch sued the City of Peekskill and Andrew Y. Stewart under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserted a First Amendment retaliation claim and a claim that the City was liable because the alleged constitutional violation resulted from a municipal policy. Welch had worked as a City laborer for 14–15 years. The City had a written policy governing employees’ social-media use both on and off the job.

In January 2021, Welch made four Facebook or Instagram posts criticizing then-Mayor Andre Rainey and municipal actions. One post used racial imagery and language while referring to former Governor Andrew Cuomo and Rainey. Other posts criticized Rainey over the sale or long-term lease of the Kiley Center, a community youth center. On March 23, 2021, the City issued Welch a written reprimand for violating the social-media policy. The reprimand did not include formal disciplinary action, but it warned that future violations could result in discipline. The reprimand was later removed from Welch’s personnel file under the collective bargaining agreement.

The City and Stewart moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment may be granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

First Amendment Retaliation

The court explained that Welch had to show that his speech was constitutionally protected, that the defendants took an adverse action against him, and that his speech caused that action.

The court held that Welch’s personal social-media posts criticizing the mayor’s political actions were speech by a citizen on matters of public concern. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the posts were unprotected because they were racially offensive, finding that the defendants had not shown that the posts threatened to interfere with City operations. The court also rejected summary judgment based on the defendants’ argument that the posts contained false statements about the Kiley Center. Although the center was leased for 50–60 years rather than sold, the court found a factual dispute about whether Welch knowingly made false statements or acted with reckless disregard for their truth.

The court found that a reasonable jury could decide that the reprimand was an adverse employment action. Although the reprimand did not cause lost pay or benefits, a jury could consider the City Manager’s direct involvement, the warning of future discipline, and the circumstances surrounding the reprimand. The court also found no dispute that the reprimand was issued because of Welch’s social-media posts. It therefore denied summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim against the City.

Municipal Liability

A municipality may be liable under the rule commonly called Monell when a municipal policy or custom causes a constitutional violation. The parties agreed that the social-media policy underlying Welch’s First Amendment claim was the City’s policy. Because the court found a triable issue about the underlying constitutional violation, it denied summary judgment on Welch’s municipal-liability claim against the City.

Qualified Immunity and Stewart

Qualified immunity is a defense that can protect a government official from civil damages unless the official violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time. The court considered Stewart’s qualified-immunity defense even though the defendants had not pleaded it earlier.

The court held that Stewart’s enforcement of the social-media policy against Welch was objectively reasonable. It concluded that Stewart did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. The court therefore granted summary judgment to Stewart and dismissed Welch’s claims against him.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied as to the City of Peekskill and granted as to Stewart. The court directed Welch and the City to prepare pretrial filings and directed the Clerk to terminate Stewart as a defendant. The court also agreed that punitive damages were unavailable against the City.