OPINION & ORDER This case involves claims by a public school principal in New York City that she was retaliated against for her constitutionally protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff Shadia Alvarez, former Interim Acting Principal of the Collegiate Institute for Math and Science (“CIMS”), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Carron Staple, a superintendent of the Department of Education of the City of New York (“DOE”) assigned to CIMS. Alvarez claims that Staple retaliated against her because of complaints Alvarez had made to the New York Police Department (“NYPD”) and other agencies regarding safety at CIMS, and that this retaliation culminated in DOE’s termination of Alvarez’s tenure as Interim Acting Principal.With discovery complete, Staple has moved on multiple grounds for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the Court grants that motion.I. BackgroundBy way of overview, Alvarez, who had tenure as an assistant principal, was appointed Interim Acting Principal of CIMS on January 1, 2012, serving on a probationary basis. Staple became the DOE superintendent assigned to supervise CIMS in October 2012. Both before and after Staple’s appointment, Alvarez complained about school safety, often speaking in tandem with principals from four sister schools. These complaints culminated in a meeting on April 12, 2013 called by Staple to discuss safety problems at these schools. In the following months, Staple was advised of discrepancies in Alvarez’s timesheets to DOE, resulting in a formal investigation into alleged theft of services which was undertaken by DOE’s Office of Special Investigations (“OSI”). In March 2014, with OSI’s investigation ongoing, Staple recommended that Alvarez’s probationary status, which had been scheduled to end on July 2014, be continued. In June 2014, after OSI issued a report finding material falsehoods on her timesheets, Staple changed her recommendation. Consistent with Staple’s now-unfavorable recommendation, DOE thereafter denied Alvarez’s certificate of completion of probation. Alvarez reverted to her underlying tenured position as an assistant principal, and later voluntarily resigned.In this lawsuit, Alvarez alleges: (1) that the complaints she made were protected speech under the First Amendment and (2) that Staple’s actions referring Alvarez’s timesheets for investigation and later recommending the termination of her probationary status were acts of retaliation for that speech. Staple counters that Alvarez’s complaints were not protected speech, but instead were employee speech within the scope of her job responsibilities. Independently, Staple argues that the evidence does not permit a finding that Alvarez’s speech caused these adverse actions. She contends that she reported Alvarez to OSI in good faith and not as a result of Alvarez’s safety complaints, and that OSI’s findings of theft of services were the sole, and a proper, basis for her decision to change her recommendation as to Alvarez’s probationary status.A. Factual Background1.1. Alvarez’s Employment with DOE: Key DatesDOE employed Alvarez between 1998 and August 2015. Def. 56.1 1. On or about January 1, 2012, Alvarez was appointed Interim Acting Principal of CIMS in the Bronx. JSF 1. CIMS was one of seven distinct schools that, during the period relevant to this case, comprised the Christopher Columbus Campus in the Bronx, New York. Id. 3. In October 2012, Staple became the DOE Superintendent assigned to Alvarez’s school. Id. 4.Alvarez’s appointment was subject to a probationary period, which was scheduled to conclude on July 1, 2014. Id. 2. On June 24, 2014, the Office of the Senior Supervising Superintendent sent Staple and other pertinent parties a formal notification through DOE’s electronic Tenure Notification System (“TNS”) that the Office had denied Alvarez’s probation. Def. 56.1 31. By letter dated June 25, 2014, Staple formally informed Alvarez of her probationary discontinuance. Id. 32. Alvarez submitted an appeal of her probationary denial to DOE’s Office of Appeals and Review in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.3.2 of the DOE Bylaws. Id. 34.On or about July 1, 2014, Alvarez reverted to her underlying tenured position of Assistant Principal with DOE. JSF 11. Alvarez voluntarily resigned from DOE service effective August 1, 2015. Id. 12.2. Alvarez’s Responsibilities With Respect to School SafetyAlvarez’s job responsibilities as Acting Principal included communicating with the NYPD about certain safety issues. Pl. Counter 56.1 6. Per an agreement between DOE and NYPD enacted in 1998, the NYPD and its School Safety Division select, train, deploy, manage, and evaluate DOE school safety personnel. Def. 56.1 8. During her time at CIMS, Alvarez was responsible for routinely interacting with the school safety personnel who served at the school regarding safety and security issues, as well as with DOE’s Office of Safety and Youth Development. Id. 7.Pursuant to Chancellor’s Regulation A-414, the “school community” is responsible for “engag[ing] in meaningful ongoing dialogue and collaboration to ensure safe schools.” Carter Decl. Ex. D (DOE Chancellor’s Regulation A-414). The “school community” is defined to include “administrators, staff, students, parents, [and] the NYPD….” Id. As Acting Principal of CIMS, Alvarez was responsible for sitting on her building’s school safety committee, which was required to formulate and submit a school safety plan for NYPD certification. Def. 56.1 10. Alvarez, together with four other principals, prepared a school safety plan in 2013.2 Alvarez attests that this document was given to “Staple, Deputy Chancellor, New Vision for Public School…, Commanding Officer Quinn, and the Leadership Academy.” Alvarez Decl. 14.3. Overview of Alvarez’s Complaints About School SafetyIn her declaration submitted in opposition to summary judgment, Alvarez identifies two complaints about school safety that she claims to have made in 2012, the first year she served as Acting Principal. On January 12, 2012, prior to Staple’s appointment, Alvarez states, she complained to “Sg[t.] Albino, Lt. Silitides…, XO Talle [and Commanding Officer] Quinn.” Alvarez Decl. 11. Later, on November 28, 2012, Alvarez claims, she drafted a letter to “Director Garcia, XO Talle [and] Supervisor Rivera,” id. 16, about “concerns that student were being arrested without due process,” that security responses by safety personnel were inadequate, and “that there was difficulty communicating in emergency situations,” id. 15.3In her deposition, Alvarez identified the safety complaints she made in 2013. Between January 2013 and the summer of 2013, Alvarez and five other principals complained about school safety to various people Alvarez described as “external” to DOE. Alvarez Dep. at 130 (“Q: So in what instance did you go external? A: When I started feeling that I could not count on the protection of my superintendent…. Q: About what time? A:… Everything from January 2013 to the end of that summer.”). An early complaint was made to Ramon Garcia, an NYPD deputy in the School Safety Division, regarding a school safety officer’s lack of responsiveness. Id. at 130-31. After that safety officer was removed, safety concerns remained, and Alvarez and the principals complained variously to Executive Officer Talle, Garcia, and Lieutenant Silitides, all part of the NYPD’s School Safety Division or Department of Internal Affairs. Id. at 131-33. Alvarez believes that Staple was copied on most of these complaints. Id: at 134-35.Alvarez in her declaration describes the contents of the principals’ safety complaints to these NYPD officials. The principals complained of “threats towards Principals”; “safety issues in the building”; “students… being arrested without due process, that only 2 out of the 7 principal’s [sic] in the building were getting security responses and that there was difficulty in communicating in emergency situations”; “fires in the stairwell, serious criminal threats [to] my staff and I”; and “death threats in the form of anonymous phone calls to my private cell-phone and office.” Alvarez Decl.
12, 14-15, 17-18.4Alvarez did not, however, communicate any safety concerns to The Leadership Academy, an education non-profit, at any time. Nor, until after her discontinuance as Acting Principal, did Alvarez communicate such concerns to her union, the Council for Supervisors and Administrators (“CSA”). Def. 56.1
