Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Vincent L. Briccetti, Judge).
Finn v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Health
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of December, two thousand and twelve.
PRESENT: JOSE A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
From 2005 to 2007, plaintiff-appellant Carl Finn was employed at the Rockland Psychiatric Center ("RPC")--a facility operated by the New York State Office of Mental Health. Finn alleges that he experienced discrimination at RPC on account of his race, and that he was fired because of his efforts to expose the discriminatory practices at RPC as well as problems with the food served at the facility. Based on those underlying factual allegations, Finn brought the following claims in federal court against RPC, the New York State Office of Mental Health, and various co-workers:
(1) employment discrimination on account of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e ("Title VII");
(2) unlawful retaliation based on his allegations of racial discrimination in violation of Title VII;
(3) unlawful retaliation for purportedly protected speech under the First Amendment;
(4) termination without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;*fn1 and (5) analogous claims under the New York State Constitution and the New York Human Rights Law, see N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296, 297. Finn's complaint sought damages and reinstatement.
Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to each claim. In a memorandum opinion and order dated October 6, 2011, the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants with respect to all of Finn's claims. The Court based its decision on numerous grounds, many of which are summarized in our ...