Piesco v. Koch

12 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was hired by D to oversee the written tests to be administered to applicants for City jobs. D was looking for tests that would withstand legal challenges and the ability to work well with other high-ranking City officials. In December 1984, D administered a test that was modeled after the previous test for that position. The new test was simplified by the removal of several complex questions. P argued that a higher pass mark should be set to compensate for the now reduced complexity. P wanted a score of 89. The matter was compromised, and the pass mark was set at 85. P had initially received excellent evaluations from her managers, Ortiz and Laporte, and merit raises. A New York State Senate Committee on Investigation established a committee to review D's Police Department. They met with P, Ortiz, and LaPorte. At that meeting, P told them that, in her view, given the pass mark of 85, any moron could pass the exam. After that initial meeting with the Goodman Committee representatives, P recanted and agreed with Ortiz that 85 was an acceptable pass mark. A month later, P again testified and again indicated that a moron could pass the exam. Ortiz sent a letter to the Mayor on the day after P's committee testimony, calling that testimony 'irresponsible.' On a subsequent meeting on July 31, 1985, Ortiz began by asking P whether she had read the exam, but she stood up and said, 'You don't know a fucking thing about testing. I am fed up with your bullshit and ineptitude.' When Ortiz asked P to calm down, she responded, 'I don't have to do a fucking thing, why don't you fire me?' Ortiz promptly terminated the meeting and placed a letter of reprimand in P's personnel file. P’s performance was now rated marginal. P promptly filed a complaint with the City's Department of Investigation ('DOI'), alleging that Ds had improperly placed the reprimand letter in her file, had excluded her from important meetings, and had given her unjustified unfavorable evaluations. DOI asked Ortiz to redo his evaluations of P. P was terminated. P filed a § 1983 suit, alleging she was retaliated against and terminated for exercising her First Amendment rights. The court granted summary judgment to D, but that was reversed. The jury found for P and awarded $1.8 million and that she should receive $50,000 each from Ortiz and Laporte as punitive damages. Ds, having moved for a 'directed verdict' at the close of the evidence, moved after trial for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial. The court denied the new trial motion on the ground that the jury's verdict, though in the court's view 'seriously erroneous,' was not 'egregious.' Ds appealed.