Inference of Retaliation
Over at the Troy Polloi, anonymous blogger Democratus speculates on the chances of success for a probable New York Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against the city of Troy. NYCLU, on behalf of the Sanctuary of Independent Media, filed a Claim of Notice against the city, as well as Department
of Public Works Commissioner Robert Mirch, alleging that code violations were used as an excuse to shut down the sanctuary's exhibit of a controversial work of art.
For background, you can go here. Or, you can go to the Web site of Wafaa Bilal, the artist.
Now, Democratus:
What will the Sanctuary have to prove in order to be successful?
a plaintiff alleging a First Amendment retaliation suit must show that: (1) he engaged in protected speech; (2) the defendants' retaliatory actions adversely affected the plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech; and (3) a causal connection between the plaintiff’s speech and the defendant’s retaliatory actions.
It will be difficult for the City to defeat the lawsuit on the first two grounds. The suit will likely be fought over the causal connection between the speech and the retaliatory action. Since municipalities rarely oblige with direct evidence of retaliation, circumstantial evidence will be needed. What suffices for such evidence? Temporal proximity is always useful:
Jones reasoned that Cole had done enough to send his case to a jury to determine whether the defendants were liable for unlawful retaliation. Both sides agreed that Cole’s investigative reports and critical editorials were protected speech. The judge also found that there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendants’ actions adversely affected Cole’s free speech. Cole noted that the resolution severely limited his ability to cover sporting events and student exhibitions. Finally, the judge reasoned that the passage of only three days between a critical article and the school’s resolution raised an inference of retaliation.- Cole v Buchanan County School Board















Recent Comments