14 Cited authorities

Pearson v. Callahan
555 U.S. 223 (2009) Cited 23,740 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that, while there is still a two-pronged test, courts of appeals can use their discretion as to which prong to address first
Garcetti v. Ceballos
547 U.S. 410 (2006) Cited 4,165 times 63 Legal Analyses
Holding if an employee does not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, "the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer's reaction to the speech"
Connick v. Myers
461 U.S. 138 (1983) Cited 5,976 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer need not "allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action"
Cobb v. Pozzi
363 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 459 times
Holding that the public concern test applies to freedom of association claims
Lewis v. Cowen
165 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 394 times
Holding that a public employee did not forgo First Amendment protection when he refused to present proposed policy changes in a positive light to the Connecticut Gaming Policy Board
Skehan v. Village of Mamaroneck
465 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 198 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "as a general proposition . . . governmental entities may not inflict an adverse employment decision upon an exercise of [its employee's] First Amendment rights," and finding that this right was clearly established as of the period when the alleged retaliation took place
Bellamy v. Mount Vernon Hospital
07 Civ. 1801 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 26, 2009) Cited 143 times
Holding that "[o]nly the first and third part of the Colon categories pass Iqbal's muster"
Reuland v. Hynes
460 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 122 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the absence of a motivating “desire to address a matter of public concern” was “not dispositive as to whether speech addressed a matter of public concern”
Kelsey v. County of Schoharie
567 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 86 times
Concluding that circuit precedent holding that “reasonable suspicion” was necessary for a “strip search” “d[i]d not control” a case involving only a “clothing exchange”
Anderson v. New York
614 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Cited 36 times
Holding that the “[plaintiffs] section 1983 claim must be dismissed against the governmental entity defendants (N.Y.S. and OCA) and the individual defendants in their official capacities on the basis of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment”
Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 Cited 13,987 times 64 Legal Analyses
Allowing "renewed motion"

Anderson v. The State of New York et al

14 Cited authorities

Holding that, while there is still a two-pronged test, courts of appeals can use their discretion as to which prong to address first

Holding if an employee does not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, "the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer's reaction to the speech"

Holding that an employer need not "allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action"

Holding that the public concern test applies to freedom of association claims

Holding that a public employee did not forgo First Amendment protection when he refused to present proposed policy changes in a positive light to the Connecticut Gaming Policy Board

Holding that "as a general proposition . . . governmental entities may not inflict an adverse employment decision upon an exercise of [its employee's] First Amendment rights," and finding that this right was clearly established as of the period when the alleged retaliation took place

Holding that "[o]nly the first and third part of the Colon categories pass Iqbal's muster"

Holding that the absence of a motivating “desire to address a matter of public concern” was “not dispositive as to whether speech addressed a matter of public concern”

Concluding that circuit precedent holding that “reasonable suspicion” was necessary for a “strip search” “d[i]d not control” a case involving only a “clothing exchange”

Holding that the “[plaintiffs] section 1983 claim must be dismissed against the governmental entity defendants (N.Y.S. and OCA) and the individual defendants in their official capacities on the basis of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment”

Allowing "renewed motion"