ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Issues: (1) Did Fiero suffer First Amendment retaliation by Bleadon for refusing to aid
her in falsifying personnel documentation? (2) Did Fiero suffer an adverse employment action?
(3) Was Bleadon entitled to qualified immunity? (4) Were Fiero’s claims precluded by the 1-year
statute of limitations established in New York Education Law § 3813?
Holding: The court held that Fiero did suffer First Amendment retaliation for declining to
assist Bleadon in her actions against two teachers. Furthermore, the court held that Fiero’s
reassignment was arbitrary and capricious. The court also held that in no way could Bleadon
expect qualified immunity for her First Amendment violations where she directed Fiero to
complete wrongful and possibly illegal actions. Finally, the court held that claims levied at the
deputy superintendent and superintendent of District 75 were governed by § 3813 and subject to
a 1-year statute of limitations, but Fiero’s claims against Bleadon were governed by Civil Human
Rights Law (CHRL) and subject to a 3-year statute of limitations.
Reasoning: Relying on Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), the defendant argued that Fiero’s
refusal to conduct the directives of his supervisor were insubordinate actions and in no way
protected speech. The court was troubled by this assertion and explicitly rejected it. The court
reasoned that Fiero’s statements of refusal to commit wrongful--possibly illegal--acts were not
statements made as an employee but rather as a concerned citizen.
Next, the court found that Fiero’s reassignment from P12X to West Side where he did not
have an office, parking spot, computer, or phone was sufficiently an adverse employment action.
Moreover, Fiero established a causal connection between his protected speech and the
reassignment. His refusal to assist Bleadon occurred in the Fall of 2004 and he experienced the
hostile work environment culminating in his reassignment in the Spring of 2005. The brief
230