Darrell Algarin, Dennis Rolon, Joseph Pirrone, James A. Mattatall, John Beletempo, Antonio Spano, Dan Negersmith, John Dimilia, Steve Walsh, Keith Borkenhagen, Kenneth Hassan King, Robert Scheuering, Kelly Scheuering, Brian Quinn, Chris Korba, Robert Kamarada, Brenda Caruso, Darrell Honkala, Frank Denardo, Paul Besser, Harry Dennis Lohr, Jr., Michael Orapello and Charles Bodensieck v. Town of Wallkill, Oscar Dino, Jay Anthony, Frank Schumaci, George Green, Sued in Their Individual Capacities, Docket No. 04-2607-Cv

Citation: 421 F.3d 137Docket: 137

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; August 30, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal was made by twenty-three current or former members of the Wallkill, New York, police department against the Town of Wallkill and its four police commissioners regarding the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The lawsuit stemmed from a July 2000 investigative report that criticized the police department but did not name the plaintiffs, linking misconduct only to the Chief of Police, who is not a party to the case. The plaintiffs argued the report contained false allegations that tarnished their reputations and led to job terminations and resignations, causing emotional distress and difficulties in obtaining employment with other police departments.

The District Court had dismissed the complaint, citing the absolute immunity of the police commissioners for the report's creation and issuance. The appeal raised the question of whether the allegedly defamatory statements in the report sufficiently identified the plaintiffs to support a "stigma plus" claim—a claim involving a defamatory statement and a deprivation of a tangible interest such as employment. The appellate court concluded that the report did not adequately identify the plaintiffs to sustain such a claim and affirmed the dismissal without addressing the immunity issue.

The District Court held that government officials with significant administrative or executive policy-making responsibilities are granted absolute immunity under state law, as established in Stukuls v. State. The court determined that the Commissioners' issuance of the Report constituted "setting policy," thereby qualifying for this immunity. It suggested that state law immunity could serve as a defense against section 1983 liability, particularly when a state law tort, such as defamation, is involved.

The court then examined the possibility of a "stigma plus" claim based on defamation, noting that an individual must be clearly identifiable in a defamatory statement. The Report, however, did not name any plaintiffs or link specific incidents to them, making it impossible to associate any statements directly with individual officers, except the Chief, who is not a plaintiff. The plaintiffs argued that as members of the Wallkill Police Department, they could claim defamation based on group defamation principles, which can allow unnamed group members to sue if the defamatory statement affects the group as a whole. 

The court highlighted that the size of the group is critical in such claims, with smaller groups being more likely to support defamation claims. While the plaintiffs cited a case where a group of 53 officers was allowed to proceed with a libel claim, the size of the Wallkill Police Department remained unspecified, complicating the determination of whether statements about unnamed individuals could be construed as defamatory to the entire group. The population and context of the community suggest that the department may be relatively small.

The determination of whether a defamatory statement pertains to "all" or "some" members of a group is significant in evaluating claims of defamation. Case law illustrates this distinction: in Owens v. Clark, a claim involving only some members of the Oklahoma Supreme Court was deemed insufficient, while in Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Morris, a statement about the entire Oklahoma football team was sufficient. The Appellate Division case, Brady, involved a statement addressing all members of a group.

In the current case, the complaint is inadequate as the Report did not make defamatory statements about the entire Wallkill Police Department or most officers; it highlighted that "most rank and file police officers are dedicated" to their duties. While the Report recommended disciplinary actions against unnamed officers, it maintained the privacy of those involved and only mentioned "illegal" conduct in a broad context, without linking it to specific individuals. The Report criticized the leadership of the Department, particularly the Police Chief, who is not a plaintiff in this case. Overall, the Report is characterized as a thorough attempt by citizen-commissioners to address administrative issues in the Wallkill Police Department, failing to support a stigma plus claim by the Plaintiffs. 

The judgment of the District Court is confirmed. The "stigma plus" concept, originally linked to job-related defamation issues, has evolved in legal discourse, with varying usages noted across different cases. The Department had 25 employees as of 2005, and comments from a related newspaper article suggested that widespread misconduct implied the complicity of the entire department. The Report also criticized certain practices as fostering potential corruption.