Gordon v. Griffith

• Decision Date: 16 March 2000
• Docket Number: No. CV 99-5106.,CV 99-5106.
• Citation: 88 F.Supp.2d 38
• Parties: Diane GORDON, Plaintiff, v. Edward GRIFFITH, individually and in his capacity as New York State Assemblyman to the 40th Assembly District, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

88 F.Supp.2d 38

Diane GORDON, Plaintiff, v. Edward GRIFFITH, individually and in his capacity as New York State Assemblyman to the 40th Assembly District, Defendant.

No. CV 99-5106.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

March 16, 2000.

Joseph A. Grob, Moskowitz & Book, LLP, New York City, for Plaintiff.

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer by Judith T. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, New York State Department of Law, New York City, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

                                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                

                  I  INTRODUCTION .......................................................................39
                 II  FACTS ..............................................................................40
                     A. Parties .........................................................................40
                     B. Political Environment ...........................................................40
                     C. Protest and Press Conference ....................................................41
                     D. Termination .....................................................................41
                III  LAW ................................................................................41
                     A. Free Speech .....................................................................41
                     B. Republican Government ...........................................................42
                        1. Deference to State Legislature ...............................................44
                           a. New York State Assembly ...................................................45
                           b. Political Considerations in Legislators' Staffing Decisions ...............45
                        2. Representation ...............................................................46
                           a. Early Theory ..............................................................46
                           b. Modern Practice ...........................................................47
                                i. Political Instruction ................................................48
                               ii. Political Accountability .............................................48
                           c. Staff Speech and Constituent Relations ....................................49
                                i. Staff Speech .........................................................50
                               ii. Legislators' Counterspeech ...........................................50
                              iii. Termination ..........................................................51
                     C. Related First Amendment Doctrines ...............................................52
                        1. Pickering ....................................................................52
                        2. Elrod ........................................................................54
                        3. Legislators' Concerns ........................................................55
                           a. Pickering's Balancing .....................................................55
                           b. Elrod's Job Classification ................................................56
                     D. First Amendment and Staff Speech ................................................57
                IV   APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS ........................................................58
                     A. Federal Claims ..................................................................58
                     B. State Claims ....................................................................58
                 V   CONCLUSION .........................................................................59
                

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff is a legislative aide who spoke out publicly on a controversial matter. Defendant, her boss and a state legislator, believed her comments were inappropriate. He fired her. The parties disagree on whether her right to free speech was violated.

Surprisingly, this appears to be an issue of first impression. In approaching this matter humility of federal judges is mandated by consideration of the needs of our state republican governments and by separation of powers. Judges with lifetime tenure must exercise restraint in overseeing the staffing decisions of legislators who periodically stand for office. This modesty is required even though, as James Madison recognized, our

independent tribunals will consider themselves ... the guardians of those rights [in the Bill of Rights]; ... an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislature ...; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment of rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights.

Debates in Congress over Madison's Amendments, 8 June 1789, in John Kaminski & Richard Leffler, The Creation of the Bill of Rights 124-25 (1999).

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to section 1983 of Title 42 alleging violations of her constitutional rights of speech and association. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also U.S. Const. amend. 1. She has also alleged violations of the New York state constitution and state labor law. See N.Y. Const. art 1, § 9; N.Y. Labor Law § 201-d(2).

Defendant has moved for dismissal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The motion is granted. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Federal Constitution. As for the pendent state claims, prudential considerations require dismissal.

II. FACTS

The factual allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true. See Brass v. American Film Technologies, Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir.1993).

A. Parties

Defendant Griffith is the New York State Assemblyman for the Fortieth Assembly District, which is located in Brooklyn, New York. He runs for office every two years. See N.Y. Const. art. 3, § 3.

In January 1997, Griffith hired plaintiff, Diane Gordon, as his Community Relations Director. See Compl. ¶ 7. Gordon worked in Assemblyman Griffith's Brooklyn district office as a salaried employee of the State of New York. See Compl. ¶ 11. Her responsibilities included:

• "Meeting with community leaders such as the presidents of tenant associations and block associations on behalf of Assemblyman Griffith" (Compl. ¶ 10);

• "Meeting with parents' groups, senior citizens, and other constituents on behalf of Assemblyman Griffith" (Compl. ¶ 10); and

• "Attending community meetings and events on behalf of Assemblyman Griffith" (Compl. ¶ 10).

While engaging in these activities, Gordon introduced herself as a representative of Assemblyman Griffith. See Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14.

In addition to these official duties, Gordon was required to "engag[e] in partisan political activity" on Assemblyman Griffith's behalf. Compl. ¶ 17. She "assisted political candidates friendly to Assemblyman Griffith during election time," using her personal time, vacation time and sick leave to do so. Compl. ¶ 17. Apart from her responsibilities to defendant, Gordon was in her own right a delegate to the New York State Democratic Party for the Fortieth Assembly District. See Compl. ¶¶ 6, 14. Both the plaintiff and the defendant run on the Democratic ticket.

B. Political Environment

Judicial notice of the political environment is taken. See, e.g., Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[A court considering a motion to dismiss] may also consider matters of which judicial notice may be taken under Fed.R.Evid. 201."); Fed.R.Evid. 201(b) ("A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is ... generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court"); id. 201(f) ("Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding."); see generally Margaret A. Berger et al., Federal Evidence, § 201, at 201-07 to 97 (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 1997); John W. Strong et al., McCormick on Evidence § 329, at 493 (5th ed.1999).

The backdrop of this case was the politically charged environment in New York City during the Spring of 1999. The City's police force was under intense scrutiny because of several incidents allegedly attributable to racially motivated "police brutality." In 1997 a Haitian immigrant, Abner Louima, was viciously beaten and sodomized by police officers while in custody. See United States v. Volpe, 78 F.Supp.2d 76, 79-81 (E.D.N.Y.1999). Criminal charges were pending against the officers involved in the Louima matter and jury selection was underway. A second incident occurred on February 4, 1999; a 22-year old West-African immigrant, Amadou Dialo, died after suffering multiple bullet wounds in a police shooting. See People v. Boss, 261 A.D.2d 1, 701 N.Y.S.2d 342, 343-47 (1st Dep't 1999).

As plaintiff puts it, these two incidents were "at the very forefront" of public attention. Pl.'s Res. Mem. at 14. On an almost daily basis, articles and editorials appeared in the leading Metropolitan newspapers. See, e.g., Joseph P. Fried, Graphic Details as Trial Opens in Louima Case, N.Y. Times, May 5, 1999, at A1; Helen Peterson, Jury Chosen; Opening Arguments Expected Tuesday in Police Brutality Case, N.Y. Daily News, May 4, 1999, in dom. sec.; Jodi Wilgoren, Under One Roof, Prayers for Diallo and a Hug for Guiliani, N.Y. Times, April 21, 1999, at B1; Tom Topousis & Roosevelt Joseph, Black Cop Group Calls for End to Hate Posters, N.Y. Post, April 19, 1999, at 18. A series of protests and marches were held at City Hall and various police stations. And the United States Department of Justice was in the midst of an investigation into possible patterns of police misconduct.

C. Protest and Press Conference

On May 5, 1999, plaintiff Gordon took part in a protest and press conference against "police brutality." Compl. ¶ 20. The demonstration occurred outside of the 75th Police Precinct Stationhouse. This Precinct is within Assemblyman Griffith's legislative district. See Compl. ¶ 20. Because this gathering occurred during a weekday, Gordon took a "personal day off from her job." Compl. ¶¶ 19-21.

According to plaintiff Gordon, the events were "organized in response to an incident wherein several officers associated with the 75th Police...