Hale v. Mann

Citation219 F.3d 61
Decision Date01 August 1999
Docket NumberDocket No. 99-7326
Parties(2nd Cir. 2000) MONROE HALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUIS MANN, Deputy Commissioner, sued in his individual capacity and THE STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees,
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendants entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Brieant, J.), the court having concluded that the plaintiff's dismissal as Youth Facility Director of the New York Secure Center in Goshen, New York did not violate his rights under the First Amendment or the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2614. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN, (Stephen Bergstein, on the brief) Law Offices of Michael H. Sussman, Goshen, NY for Plaintiff-Appellant.

MARION R. BUCHBINDER, Assistant Attorney General of the State of New York (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Edward Johnson, Deputy Solicitor General, & Michael S. Belohlavek, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief) New York, NY for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KEARSE, MINER, AND CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded.

Judge Cabranes files a separate opinion concurring in the opinion in connection with the dismissal of the Family and Medical Leave Act claim, but dissenting from the reinstatement of the First Amendment claim.

MINER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant Monroe Hale ("Hale") appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees, The State of New York Office of Children and Family Services ("OCFS") and Louis Mann ("Mann"), a Deputy Commissioner in OCFS, entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Brieant, J). In 1998, Hale was terminated from his position as Youth Facility Director ("Director") of the New York Secure Center in Goshen, New York ("Goshen Facility"). He subsequently brought suit alleging that he had been fired in violation of his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and the First Amendment.1 On February 25, 1999, the district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that Hale's post-FMLA leave firing did not violate the FMLA and that Hale's firing was not motivated by any protected speech on his part.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

In 1991, Hale was hired as Director of the Goshen Facility, an 85-bed residential youth facility operated by OCFS. OCFS' responsibilities include providing care, treatment, and security for offenders placed in its custody by the courts. At all times pertinent to this appeal, the Goshen Facility housed male juvenile delinquents. As Director, Hale served in a policy influencing position held at the pleasure of the Governor and was responsible for the administration and management of the Goshen Facility, including its effective implementation of safety and security measures. Hale's position also required him to establish a relationship with the community and seek to maintain "harmonious community relations."

According to Hale, conditions at the Goshen Facility were in disarray when he took over; the staff did not feel safe, and assaults on the residents and staff were common. After Hale assumed his duties, funding for the Goshen Facility decreased and the residents became more violent, thus prompting increased security concerns.

Starting in 1995, OCFS began to alter the procedures employed at the Goshen Facility. OCFS contends that it was Hale's failure to implement these procedures which led to continued breakdowns in security and Hale's eventual termination as Director. On the other hand, Hale contends that OCFS policies led to problems at the Goshen Facility and that his discharge was due to his objections to OCFS' misguided policies. In any event, all seem to agree that conditions at the Goshen Facility had become less than desirable by late 1997--numerous security breakdowns and altercations among the residents were occurring at that time.

In January 1997, OCFS personnel conducted an unannounced search of the Goshen Facility as part of an "effort to address the management and safety issues" that were arising at the Facility. OCFS asserts that numerous problems were discovered: the presence of contraband--sharp metal and cash in resident's rooms and tools and screws in the vocational area; the room designated as the "key room" was in disarray; and residents possessed gang-related material. Moreover, OCFS personnel observed that uncooperative residents were allowed out of their rooms unaccompanied by staff, potentially leading to assaults. The search also revealed concerns about cleanliness, the job performance of one of Hale's assistants, and overall lack of supervision. Due to the results of this search, one of Deputy Commissioner Mann's assistants, Brenda Flanagan ("Flanagan"), spoke with Hale. Mann, via Flanagan, directed Hale to initiate new policies at the Goshen Facility. In particular, Mann asserted that Wing 1 should no longer be used to counsel disruptive residents, but should instead be used only for residents restricted to in-room confinement. The defendants assert that Hale failed to carry out their policies and initiatives for dealing with these problems.

On September 20, 1997, an affray broke out at the Goshen Facility, injuring staff. The fracas generated negative press coverage concerning violence at the Facility, prompting political debate about conditions there. By letter dated September 23, 1997, Robert P. Pollack, one of Mann's subordinates, informed Hale that Mann wanted Hale to conduct an investigation into the September 20, 1997 incident. Seeking to respond to Mann's request, Hale asked a staff member, Stephen Langbein, to investigate and report.

Langbein's investigation revealed that "agency policies and practices, adopted and implemented by . . . Mann, had significantly contributed to a decline in staff safety." Hale Affidavit at 19. Langbein's written report highlighted a factor that Hale had indicated to his superiors was contributing to the unsafe conditions at the Goshen Facility: OCFS' failure to deal "with some of the most volatile, aggressive youths in the state." The report was specifically critical of policy changes established by Mann with regard to the use of Wing 1 at the Goshen Facility. It recommended that OCFS permit the staff at the Goshen Facility to resume their prior use of Wing 1 for counseling disruptive residents. The report also questioned OCFS' policy with regard to youths over the age of eighteen.

In response to a previously submitted incident report, the Commission of Correction ("Commission"),2 by letter dated October 6, 1997, requested (1) the investigative report regarding the September 20, 1997 incident; (2) a breakdown of all incidents at the Goshen Facility between January and October of 1997; and (3) the number of residents moved to jail as a result of the incident. Langbein had submitted his report to Hale via an October 20, 1997 memorandum. By letter dated November 10, 1997, Hale submitted the report to Steve Mann ("S. Mann"), one of Mann's subordinates. Aware of the ongoing public debate over safety at the Goshen Facility, and presumably in response to the Commission's prior request, Hale appears to have also sent a copy of the report to the Commission.

By letter dated November 24, 1997, S. Mann wrote Hale that Langbein's report was unacceptable because it made "numerous editorial comments" and included "thoughts and concerns" as opposed to containing "only factual information." Hale asserts that his superiors were hostile to the "thoughts and concerns" expressed in the Langbein report, which reflected Hale's views as conveyed in prior letters to his supervisors3 and in discussions with Langbein, and that he forwarded the report because he wanted to let the Commission and others know "what really was happening at the facility." According to Hale, the views expressed in the report addressed matters that were common to all OCFS facilities.

Apparently upset about the content of the report that Hale sent to the Commission, S. Mann told Hale that he should have first forwarded the report to central administration. S. Mann further stated that Hale was "this close" (while holding his fingers approximately one inch apart) to not having a job. According to Hale, this was the first time that he was threatened with termination, and it occurred immediately after "Mann became incensed with [Hale's] reporting the September 20, 1997 incident to the Commission on Corrections."

In December 1997, Hale took sick leave for job-related stress. After Hale began his stress-related leave, S. Mann determined that Hale would be considered on FMLA leave as of January 1, 1998.

Concerned about what was perceived as the continuing problems of the Goshen Facility, OCFS conducted another unannounced search of the Goshen Facility on January 13 and 14, 1998. Because of his leave, Hale was absent from the Goshen Facility at the time this search occurred. It had been approximately six weeks since he had taken sick leave. According to Hale, the search did not result in any disciplinary measures against other staff members, nor were any weapons or illegal contraband found. However, the defendants contend that the search revealed that "Goshen was still 'dirty' 'unkempt' and 'disorganized' . . . , and contraband was abundant both in common areas and the residents' rooms."

Allegedly because of his dismay over the results of this search, Mann subsequently stated to Flanagan that Hale "had to go" and by letter dated January 15, 1998 informed Hale that he was terminated as Facility Director, effective January 21, 1998. After objections...

To continue reading

Request your trial
119 cases
  • Dighello v. Thurston Foods, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • May 9, 2018
    ...a ‘serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.’ " Hale v. Mann , 219 F.3d 61, 68 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D) ). The FMLA also allows an eligible employee to take "a total of 12 workweeks of leave du......
  • Maliandi v. Montclair State Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 27, 2016
    ...does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity); id. at 1338–39 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (same); see also Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 2000) (concluding that "29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D), and the related retaliation section, see id. § 2614(a)(1)" do not abrogate Eleventh ......
  • Weintraub v. Weintraub
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • April 28, 2006
    ...in the evisceration of an employee's First Amendment rights." Johnson v. Ganim, 342 F.3d 105, 112 (2d Cir.2003) (citing Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir.2000)). And while the First Amendment does not "require a public office to be run as a roundtable for employee complaints over intern......
  • McGrath v. Nassau Health Care Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • July 29, 2002
    ...social or other ... [issues of] concern to the community." Garcia, 280 F.3d at 105; see Diesel, 232 F.3d at 108; Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 71 (2d Cir. 2000). Whether speech concerns public or private matters is a question of law for courts to decide. Grillo, 291 F.3d at 235, Moskowitz, 3 F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Family and Medical Leave Act
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part V. Discrimination In Employment
    • July 27, 2016
    ...v. Wyo. Dept. of Fam. Serv ., 342 F.3d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 2003); Laro v. New Hampshire , 259 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2001); Hale v. Mann , 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 2000); Banks v. Court of Common Pleas FJD , 342 Fed.Appx. 818, 821 (3d Cir. 2009); Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Ctr ., 48......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part VIII. Selected Litigation Issues
    • July 27, 2016
    ...Appx. 505, 510-11 (6th Cir. 2006), §40:10 Halbrook v. Reichhold Chems., Inc. , 735 F. Supp. 121 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), §4:2.B.1.b Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2000), §25:2.D.3, App. 25-2 Halferty v. Pulse Drug Co. , 864 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1989), §9:4.C Haliburton v. City of San Antonio , 9......
  • Family and Medical Leave Act
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 16, 2014
    ...v. Wyo. Dept. of Fam. Serv., 342 F.3d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 2003); Laro v. New Hampshire, 259 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2001); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 2000); Banks v. Court of Common Pleas FJD, 342 Fed.Appx. 818, 821 (3d Cir. 2009); Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Ctr., 481 F.3......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • August 16, 2014
    ...Appx. 505, 510-11 (6th Cir. 2006), §40:10 Halbrook v. Reichhold Chems., Inc. , 735 F. Supp. 121 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), §4:2.B.1.b Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2000), §25:2.D.3, App. 25-2 Halferty v. Pulse Drug Co. , 864 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1989), §9:4.C Haliburton v. City of San Antonio , 9......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT