From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singer v. Ferro

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Apr 1, 2013
711 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2013)

Summary

concluding that the speech was too vague to create a public concern even though the subject involved governmental corruption, which was "plainly a potential topic of public concern"

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Riggs

Opinion

Docket No. 11–3919–cv.

2013-04-1

Kent SINGER, Thomas Nollner, Jonathan Decker, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Christopher C. FERRO, sued in his individual capacity, Jon Becker, sued in his individual capacity, Paul J. Van Blarcum, Ulster County Sheriff, sued in his individual capacity, James R. Hanstein, Superintendent of Corrections, sued in his individual capacity, Frank Faluotico, sued in his individual capacity, County of Ulster, Defendants–Appellees.

Stephen Bergstein, Bergstein & Ullrich, LLP, Chester, New York, for Plaintiffs–Appellants. Earl T. Redding, Roemer Wallens Gold & Mineaux LLP, Albany, New York, for Defendants–Appellees.



Stephen Bergstein, Bergstein & Ullrich, LLP, Chester, New York, for Plaintiffs–Appellants. Earl T. Redding, Roemer Wallens Gold & Mineaux LLP, Albany, New York, for Defendants–Appellees.
Before: NEWMAN, CABRANES, and SACK, Circuit Judges.

SACK, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs Kent Singer, Thomas Nollner, and Jonathan Decker appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge) granting summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, who are supervisors or officials at the Ulster County, New York Sheriff's Office and the county jail, took adverse employment actions against them in retaliation for a parody created by Singer that suggested corruption among jail officials, and for subsequently filing a lawsuit based upon this alleged retaliation. Because we agree with the district court that neither Singer's parody nor the plaintiffs' lawsuit were what the law considers to be, for these purposes, speech “[1] as a citizen [2] on a matter of public concern,” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006), we affirm.

BACKGROUND

This lawsuit arises out of events that took place during the autumn of 2008 at the Ulster County Jail (the “UCJ”) in Ulster County, New York. At the time, Singer, Decker, and Nollner were employed at the UCJ, Singer as a corporal, and Decker and Nollner as corrections officers.

A. The Parody

During a shift in mid-September 2008, Singer created a parody on his work computer. A copy of it is annexed to this opinion. It was a spoof on the familiar Absolut Vodka advertisements, which typically display an Absolut Vodka bottle adorned or transformed in some thematic fashion, and beneath the bottle a two-word phrase beginning with the word “Absolut.” Singer's version displayed in or on the bottle pictures of four UCJ officials—two of whom are defendants Becker and Ferro—and the caption read, “Absolut Corruption.” The parody was not original; Singer got the idea from a similar “Absolut Corruption” parody that he had found on the Internet. He printed out the previous version and then overlaid it with IMAGE

Warden Ray Acevedo, who is not a named defendant, also received a copy.

Singer was apparently employing a slang use of the expression: “The process of attempting to remove influence and power from enemies, especially political enemies.” http:// www. thefree dictionary. com/ headhunting (last visited Mar. 28, 2013).


Summaries of

Singer v. Ferro

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Apr 1, 2013
711 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2013)

concluding that the speech was too vague to create a public concern even though the subject involved governmental corruption, which was "plainly a potential topic of public concern"

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Riggs

recognizing that "governmental corruption is plainly a potential topic of public concern"

Summary of this case from Specht v. The City of New York

noting that, in determining whether speech is on a matter of public concern, a relevant consideration is "whether the speech was calculated to redress personal grievances or whether it had a broader public purpose"

Summary of this case from Agosto v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

In Singer and Ruotolo, the Second Circuit concluded that requests for personal relief alone counseled against finding that a suit was a matter of public concern.

Summary of this case from Gibson v. Kilpatrick

observing that “thrust” of lawsuit was “towards the ‘entirely personal’ relief of monetary damages for what are, at bottom, allegations of wrongful treatment as employees and wrongful termination”

Summary of this case from Gibson v. Kilpatrick

stating that the corrupt practices plaintiff claims were the subject of his speech, including “payroll discrepancies, promotions, discipline” were all “employment-related matters,” and that the court “do [es] not think that the public has a substantial interest in minor payroll discrepancies amongst corrections department staff, an isolated promotion to middle management, an arrest sixteen years prior, or rumors of womanizing”

Summary of this case from Golodner v. Berliner
Case details for

Singer v. Ferro

Case Details

Full title:KENT SINGER, THOMAS NOLLNER, JONATHAN DECKER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 1, 2013

Citations

711 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Fotopolous v. Bd. of Fire Comm'rs

Puglisi v. Town of Hempstead, Dep't of Sanitation, Sanitary Dist. No. 2, 545 Fed.Appx. 23, 26 (2d Cir.2013)…

Bartone v. Mattera

Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. ---, ---, 134 S.Ct. 2369, 2378 (2014) (quoting Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410,…