Plaintiff Daniel Sanders residing in Forest Hills, New York, in Queens County. He is a Correction Officer
Question:
Plaintiff Daniel Sanders residing in Forest Hills, New York, in Queens County. He is a Correction Officer employed by the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC"). DOC operates the City's jails in which incarcerated individuals are held in custody. He has been employed by DOC since 2014.During and after the height of the Covid pandemic sometime in 2020 staffing shortages became a serious issue at the jail on Rikers Island where Plaintiff was employed, due to staff illnesses, resignations, and other reasons. Plaintiff became very concerned that these staffing shortages endangered staff and incarcerated individuals. There were insufficient correction officers to monitor the facility or to effectively intervene if an emergency arose, such as an altercation or attack by an incarcerated individual upon another incarcerated individual or a staff member, or an individual needing emergency medical attention. Plaintiff spoke to his immediate supervisor, a Sergeant, and to a higher-ranking supervisor about the situation, to no avail. He was told that there was nothing that could be done about the lack of adequate staffing.
Plaintiff spoke about the issue with union officials and raised a complaint at a union meeting. At this meeting he suggested several actions that officers could take to draw attention to and attempt to alleviate the shortage. On or about January 10, 2022, Plaintiff also sent a complaint to the Commissioner of DOC, the individual in charge of the agency. On or about April 5, 2022, Plaintiff was notified that he was being investigated for maintaining an inappropriate relationship with a female incarcerated individual and for introducing contraband into the correction facility. On or about April 12, 2022, jail officials informed Plaintiff that DOC officials were going to search his locker. He was permitted to observe as they searched. During the search they confiscated Plaintiff's personal cell phone. Although the phone was used for DOC business, Plaintiff had numerous texts, e-mails, and photographs of a personal nature on the phone. Plaintiff was subsequently advised that supervisors had read his texts and e-mails, and had looked at some of his photographs, including intimate photographs of his wife.
On April 20, 2022, Plaintiff was served with a notice of discipline, charging him with maintaining an inappropriate relationship with an incarcerated individual and promoting prison contraband. Plaintiff had provided a minimal amount of pain-relieving medication to an incarcerated individual, who was experiencing serious pain from a dental procedure and was not receiving appropriate treatment from DOC medical staff. He did this only to assist the individual and alleviate her pain, and he did not receive any benefit from doing so.
After a hearing, Plaintiff was issued a reprimand and suspended for two weeks without pay. This discipline is on his personnel record, which could impact his future career, including the possibility of promotions. Plaintiff had an expectation of privacy in his locker and personal cell phone. Defendant's actions caused Plaintiff emotional distress and damaged his career. Defendant's search of Plaintiff's locker and personal cell phone violated his right to privacy, and Plaintiff's discipline violated his right to free speech because it was done to punish Plaintiff for his speech criticizing DOC.
Dynamic Business Law
ISBN: 9781260247893
5th Edition
Authors: Nancy Kubasek, M. Neil Browne, Daniel Herron, Lucien Dhooge, Linda Barkacs