Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity unless violative of an individual's statutory or constitutional rights
Cavanaugh v Doherty, Appellate Division, 243 A.D.2d 92

Erin Cavanaugh, an Assistant Public Relations Aide employed by the State Department of Correctional Services and Thomas Doherty, Appointment Secretary in the Executive Department, became involved in a political argument at a restaurant. Their oral exchanges culminated in Cavanaugh calling Doherty an ?explicitve deleted.? Doherty allegedly responded that ?he would 'have her job in the morning'?.

Forty-eight hours later Cavanaugh was unemployed.

Cavanaugh sued, claiming a breach of her employment contract; abusive discharge; violation of her civil rights and other wrongdoings by Doherty, James Flateau, her immediate supervisor and John Patterson, a Correctional Services? deputy commissioner who allegedly ordered Flateau to fire Cavanaugh because of her retort during her off-duty argument with Doherty.

Although at this stage of the proceeding the appeal essentially concerned challenges by the parties to the Supreme Court?s allowing certain claims and defenses to survive and dismissing others, the Appellate Division addressed a number of significant issues in the course of reviewing the matter.

One is of particular importance, addressing the concept of a public official?s ?qualified immunity.?

The court said that a government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate [an individual?s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have know....?

Commenting that the official has the burden of demonstrating that his or her acts enjoy a qualified immunity, the Appellate Division said that although Flateau was acting within the ambit of his official duties, as he was instructed to terminate Cavanaugh, ?none of the defendants has established that they had an objectively reasonable belief that their actions did not violate clearly established rights of [Cavanaugh], particularly as it appears that [Cavanaugh?s] termination was retributive in nature for the personal affront to Doherty ... and because each was aware of or should have been aware of [Cavanaugh?s] First Amendment rights.?

The court concluded that ?the defendants have not established entitlement to qualified immunity,? and reinstated Cavanaugh?s civil rights violation claims.

In contrast, the Appellate Division said that while Cavanaugh?s allegations that her employment was intentionally terminated without justification and she suffered damages as a result was sufficient to allege a prima facie tort against Doherty and Patterson, this claim against Flateau should be dismissed because, said the court, ?he was acting within the ambit of his official duties.?

The opinion also notes that pubic policy prohibits the maintenance of a suit against the State or, by extension, an official acting in his or her official capacity for prima facie tort.?

The Appellate Division pointed out that two of Cavanaugh?s claims were brought against the defendants in their ?official capacity.? These consisted of an alleged breach of her employment contract and an alleged violation of Section 201-d of the Labor Law. The court said that the Supreme Court properly ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over these causes of action and that they should have been filed with the Court of Claims.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on July 21, 2010 (boomark / email).