Federal District Court Grants Motion For Summary Judgment Dismissing Claim Of Retaliation

Plaintiff commenced an action in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging he was terminated from his employment with the Town of Hempstead in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment.

Plaintiff was hired as a coordinator to assist with the administration of a grant awarded to the Town of Hempstead (“Town”) to combat gun violence.  As noted by the District Court (Morrison, U.S.D.J.), Plaintiff, when hired, was advised and understood that his employment was temporary and would end when the grant was fully administered.

During a meeting on the afternoon of August 31, 2022, the decision was made to end Plaintiff’s employment as the remaining funds awarded to the Town under the grant were insufficient to continue paying Plaintiff’s salary.  It was decided that Plaintiff would be advised of this decision the following morning.

Later that same evening, Plaintiff spoke publicly at a public hearing held by the Nassau County Redistricting Commission.  The next morning, on September 1, 2022, Plaintiff was informed that his employment would end as of September 30, 2022.

In granting Berkman Henoch’s motion for summary judgment made on behalf of the Town, the District Court determined that the “record and undisputed facts make clear that the decision to terminate [Plaintiff], and to inform him that he was being terminated, were made prior to the date on which he engaged in the protected speech that is the basis for his First Amendment claim . . . Based on the undisputed facts in the record alone, there ‘is no evidence . . . of casualty.’”   The District Court further noted that “[t]here is no question that [Plaintiff] engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment when he criticized the Redistricting Commission in his comments at the public hearing . . . But [Plaintiff] has not provided any evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Defendants’ earlier decision to terminate [Plaintiff’s] temporary, grant-funded position was casually linked to the exercise of his constitutional rights.  For the reasons discussed, the Court grants the Town Defendants’ . . . motion[] for summary judgment.”

The Town of Hempstead and related Defendants were represented by Donna A. Napolitano, Esq. and Nicholas S. Tuffarelli, Esq. – members of Berkman Henoch’s Litigation Department.

Link to: Copy of the Court’s Memorandum and Order Granting Summary Judgment