Latino Officers Ass'n v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 31 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 99 Civ. 9568(LAK).,99 Civ. 9568(LAK). |
| Citation | 253 F.Supp.2d 771 |
| Parties | LATINO OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Diane Paolicelli, Jerome Block, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP, Richard A. Levy, Pamela Jeffrey, Tarik F. Ajami, Levy Ratner & Behroozi, P.C., Robert Spergel, Law Offices of Robert Spergel, for Plaintiffs.
Julie O'Neil, Stuart I. Parker, Amy F. Melican, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, for Defendants.
Defendants in this class action move for summary judgment dismissing the wrongful termination claims of plaintiffs Charles Castro, Fernando Sanchez, and Reuben Malave (the "Article 78 Plaintiffs") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and on the basis of preclusion principles.1
The Article 78 Plaintiffs are three of twenty-two class representatives in this action, which alleges discrimination by the New York City Police Department ("NYPD") on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Plaintiffs generally make three broad allegations: (1) the NYPD maintains and permits a work environment that is hostile to Latino and African-American officers; (2) the NYPD's application of its disciplinary rules and processes embodies a pattern or practice of disparate treatment of Latino and African-American officers; and (3) Latino and African-American officers have been retaliated against for complaining about what they perceived to be a hostile work environment and racebased disparities in discipline.2 They seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the NYPD to, inter alia, abolish discrimination, appoint an independent monitor, remove the disciplinary charge process from the NYPD to an external body, and reinstate class members who were terminated in violation of the law.3 Plaintiffs seek also back pay, benefits, and seniority, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
Each of the three Article 78 Plaintiffs, an NYPD officer, was terminated by the NYPD and previously brought an Article 78 proceeding challenging his termination. The substance of each officer's claim is described below.
The Police Commissioner dismissed Castro on December 30, 1998 on the recommendation of an Assistant Deputy Trial Commissioner, who found that he had made false statements at an official interview relating to a harassment complaint by a civilian who subsequently was murdered by her former boyfriend, a police officer.4
Plaintiff Castro brought an Article 78 proceeding in April 1999 to challenge his dismissal.5 His petition alleged that: (1) the decisions of the Police Commissioner and Assistant Deputy Police Commissioner were not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the report of the Assistant Deputy Police Commissioner, as adopted by the Police Commissioner, was not supported by substantial evidence; (3) the penalty of dismissal was an abuse of discretion; (4) the divestiture of Castro's pension was arbitrary and capricious; and (5) the divestiture of the pension deprived Castro of due process of law.6
Castro claimed also that his dismissal from the NYPD may have been related to, or in retaliation for, his membership and active participation in the Latino Officers Association ("LOA"), a fraternal organization whose members are current and former Latino and African-American NYPD officers and civilian employees, and that his dismissal reflected disparate treatment in the application of NYPD disciplinary rules and procedures. Castro's petition asserted that he is a "vocal and active member of the Latino Officers Association" and that he had brought "numerous charges of Discrimination and unfair treatment against supervisory personnel of the [P]olice Department."7 Furthermore, Castro alleged in his supporting affidavit that "[t]here have been numerous instances where white officers have been similarly charged by the Police Department, however they were not terminated, and are currently receiving all the benefits afforded to them."8 He then listed the names of ten white officers who allegedly fit this description.9 Plaintiff cross-referenced this allegation in his verified petition.10
The Appellate Division, First Department,11 denied Castro's Article 78 petition, finding that the Commissioner's dismissal of Castro was supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty of dismissal did not "shock our sense of fairness."12 The court did not explicitly address Castro's other claims.
Castro asserts the causes of action previously described.13 He claims that he was threatened and retaliated against for engaging in protected activities, including filing complaints with the NYPD and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").14 He alleges further that his termination was the result of disparate treatment in the application of disciplinary rules and processes to Latino and African-American officers. He asserts that "non-Latino officers who have made clearly false and misleading statements during [official] interrogations have been allowed to retire with full pensions, or received lesser penalties than termination, while memory lapses comparable to [his] have not resulted in discipline."15
Castro seeks the same relief sought by the class, including declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the alleged discrimination wrought by the NYPD on Latino and African-American officers, reinstatement with back pay and seniority, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.16
Malave was arrested in March 1997 for soliciting sex from two undercover female police officers posing as prostitutes,17 an allegation that later resulted in his being brought up on departmental charges. An Assistant Deputy Trial Commissioner found him guilty and of being unfit for duty due to intoxication.18 The Police Commissioner terminated him on October 16, 1998.19
Malave brought an Article 78 petition on February 8, 1999 to challenge his dismissal.20 The petition contended that the Assistant Deputy Commissioner's findings and recommendations were not supported by substantial evidence, were against the weight of the evidence, and were arbitrary and capricious.21 Malave contended also that the Police Commissioner's acceptance of the hearing officer's findings and recommendation was, "given the alleged misconduct, the petitioner's past work performance and respondent's regular practice, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law and public policy and shocking to the conscience."22
The Appellate Division, First Department,23 unanimously denied Malave's petition, finding that his dismissal was supported by substantial evidence.24 It stated also that the penalty of dismissal was not "so disproportionate to petitioner's offenses as to shock our sense of fairness."25
Malave asserts the same claims and seeks the same relief as all other plaintiffs.26 In particular, he alleges that "many similarly situated white officers have engaged in far more egregious conduct without being terminated, and have in fact remained on the force and received lesser penalties or have been permitted to resign with full pension."27
The events leading up to Sanchez's dismissal were as follows: The NYPD brought administrative charges against Sanchez after a September 10, 1996 incident in which, while off-duty, he was stopped by two undercover Internal Affairs Bureau ("IAB") officers who were staking out the house of Sanchez's brother.28 Sanchez refused to comply with an order to surrender his firearm and was found to be in possession of a bogus police shield.29 On July 14, 1997, the Police Commissioner adopted the report and recommendation of the disciplinary hearing officer who adjudicated the charges against Sanchez and dismissed Sanchez from the NYPD, holding the termination in abeyance for a probationary period of one year, commencing August 5, 1997.30
During the term of his probation, administrative charges were brought against Sanchez for comments he made to an Assistant District Attorney and a superior officer following the sentencing of his brother for insurance fraud.31 A third charge for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency or discipline of the NYPD was brought against him based on a letter he sent to the New York County District Attorney in which he complained about the course and outcome of his brother's trial.32 Sanchez then was terminated without a hearing on October 7,1998.33
Sanchez brought an Article 78 petition in February 1999 challenging his dismissal from the NYPD.34 He alleged that: (1) the police commissioner violated his rights under New York Unconsolidated Law § 891 and his state and federal rights to due process of law by terminating him without a hearing; and (2) the decision to terminate him was arbitrary and capricious and violated his state and federal rights to freedom of speech, as he was terminated because of statements he allegedly made about his brother's prosecution.35
On September 27, 1999, the Article 78 court denied Sanchez's petition.36 The court found that Sanchez was a probationary employee when he was terminated and thus could be dismissed without a hearing.37 Observing that "(j]udicial review of the termination of a probationary employee is limited to inquiry into whether the termination was arbitrary, capricious or otherwise made in bad faith," the court found that the record demonstrated a rational basis for Sanchez's dismissal and that his termination was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor in bad faith.38 The court noted further that "[t]he record as presented to this court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cherry v. New York City Housing Authority
...illegally, or in excess of its jurisdiction in affirming NYCHA's determination"); see also Latino Officers Ass'n v. City of New York , 253 F. Supp. 2d 771, 787 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding that plaintiff "raised in his Article 78 proceeding the arguments that his termination was retaliatory and......
-
Heller v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist.
....... The charges ... might have been sustainable even if they were animated by bias and retaliation.”); Latino Officers Ass'n v. City of New York , 253 F.Supp.2d 771, 786 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (“The Article 78 court's finding that [plaintiff's] termination was rational is not inconsistent with a f......
-
Marentette v. City of Canandaigua
...its determination that the hearing was ‘fair’ functions as an actual decision on each of the issues."); Latino Officers Ass'n v. City of New York , 253 F.Supp.2d 771, 787 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding that "[t]he state court's determination that the police commissioner's decision to terminate [t......
-
Cianciotto ex rel. D.S. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
...met so that a party is not precluded from obtaining at least one full hearing on his or her claim." Latino Officers Ass'n v. City of New York , 253 F. Supp. 2d 771, 783 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). "The burden of showing that the issues are identical and necessarily w......