Frisenda v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MALVERNE

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[w]here . . . a public employee brings a retaliation claim based on the First Amendment, a plaintiff must put forth evidence . . . demonstrate[ing] . . . a prima facie case” (emphasis added)
• denying summary judgment on a First Amendment retaliation claim where the court found that “[p]laintiff ha[d] put forth sufficient evidence of an adverse employment action”
• dismissing Equal Protection claim based on retaliation for First Amendment activity as duplicative and collecting cases
• analyzing whether a public employee speaks as a private citizen entitled to First Amendment protection
• collecting cases in the Second Circuit finding temporal proximity sufficient to support an inference of retaliation where there was a short gap between the protected activity and retaliatory action
• finding employee’s speech not protected because, inter alia, it was not concerning a matter of public concern and was not intended to be publicly disseminated in furtherance of civic discourse (quoting Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 422)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).