DocketNumber: 10-3395-cv
Citation Numbers: 440 F. App'x 5
Judges: Dennis, Jacobs, Katzmann, Miner, Robert, Roger
Filed Date: 9/12/2011
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/5/2023
10-3395-cv Otte v. Brusinski et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 12th day of September, two thousand eleven. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge, 8 ROGER J. MINER, 9 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 13 STEVEN W. OTTE, 14 Plaintiff-Appellant, 15 16 -v.- 10-3395-cv 17 18 FRANK BRUSINSKI, sued in his 19 individual capacity, DONNA DeLUSSO, 20 sued in her individual capacity, 21 Defendants-Appellees, 22 23 STEVEN BARBER, sued in his individual 24 capacity, 25 Defendant. 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 27 28 FOR APPELLANT: Stephen Bergstein, Bergstein & Ullrich, 29 LLP, Chester, New York. 1 FOR APPELLEES: Marion R. Buchbinder, Assistant Solicitor 2 General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor 3 General, Benjamin N. Gutman, Deputy 4 Solicitor General, of counsel), for Eric 5 T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the 6 State of New York, New York, New York. 7 8 9 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 10 Court for the Southern District of New York (Seibel, J.). 11 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 13 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is 14 AFFIRMED. 15 16 Plaintiff-Appellant Steven Otte (“Otte”) appeals from 17 the July 22, 2010 judgment of the United Stated District 18 Court for the Southern District of New York (Seibel, J.), 19 granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellants 20 Frank Brusinksi (“Brusinski”) and Donna DeLusso (“DeLusso”) 21 and dismissing Otte’s claim, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 22 § 1983, that he was retaliated against for exercising his 23 First Amendment right of free speech. We assume the 24 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 25 procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 26 27 We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary 28 judgment. See F.D.I.C. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.,607 F.3d 288
, 29 292 (2d Cir. 2010). 30 31 [1] “To establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, a 32 plaintiff must show: (1) his speech addressed a matter of 33 public concern; (2) he suffered an adverse employment 34 action; and (3) a causal connection between the speech and 35 the adverse employment action.” Singh v. City of New York, 36524 F.3d 361
, 372 (2d Cir. 2008). Otte complained to his 37 supervisor, Brusinski, that certain patients at the Mid- 38 Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center (“Mid-Hudson”) should not 39 have the use of a microwave oven. Otte’s speech was 40 “pursuant to his official duties because it was 41 part-and-parcel of his concerns about his ability to 42 properly execute his duties” as a security hospital 43 treatment assistant--namely, to maintain a safe environment 44 for other patients and employees. Weintraub v. Bd. of 45 Educ.,593 F.3d 196
, 203 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation 2 1 marks omitted). His speech therefore was not protected by 2 the First Amendment, see Garcetti v. Ceballos,547 U.S. 410
, 3 421 (2006), and he thus failed to satisfy the first 4 requirement necessary to allege a First Amendment 5 retaliation claim. 6 7 [2] Even assuming Otte’s speech was protected, he suffered 8 no adverse employment action as a result. The term “adverse 9 employment action” has a different meaning in the context of 10 a First Amendment retaliation claim than it does in cases 11 brought under Title VII. See Zelnik v. Fashion Inst. of 12 Tech.,464 F.3d 217
, 225–26 (2d Cir. 2006). A plaintiff 13 need not demonstrate a material change in employment terms 14 or conditions in order to establish that he was subjected to 15 an adverse employment action; rather, a plaintiff need only 16 show that the retaliatory conduct in question “would deter a 17 similarly situated individual of ordinary firmness from 18 exercising his or her constitutional rights.”Id.
at 225 19 (internal quotation marks omitted). 20 21 The detriment Otte relies on is his transfer from one 22 floor to another, at which he performed the same job. 23 Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, Mid-Hudson 24 management has the right, at its sole discretion, to deploy 25 employees between floors within a building. Moreover, 26 Otte’s transfer was made as a result of Brusinski’s claim 27 that Otte’s comments were threatening. It is undisputed 28 that the facility’s normal operating procedure was to 29 separate an employee from a supervisor when a threat was 30 alleged to have been made. In short, Otte’s transfer was 31 not the type of action that “would deter a similarly 32 situated individual of ordinary firmness from exercising his 33 or her constitutional rights” and was therefore not an 34 adverse employment action.Id.
(internal quotation marks 35 omitted). 36 37 We have considered all of Otte’s remaining arguments 38 and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing 39 reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby 40 AFFIRMED. 41 42 FOR THE COURT: 43 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 44 45 3
martin-zelnik-v-fashion-institute-of-technology-state-university-of-new , 464 F.3d 217 ( 2006 )
Singh v. City of New York , 524 F.3d 361 ( 2008 )
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Great American Insurance , 607 F.3d 288 ( 2010 )
Weintraub v. Board of Educ. of City of New York , 593 F.3d 196 ( 2010 )