green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
5.0 score
“the nature and contours of a specific property interest are defined by some source independent of the constitution”
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Latif v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
In contrast, the Fifth Circuit has held that “medical residents are not employees protected by the due process clause.” Shaboon v. Duncan, 252 F.3d 722, 732 (5th Cir.2001) (citing Davis v. Mann, 882 F.2d 967, 974 (5th Cir.1989)); but see Ezekwo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, 940 F.2d 775 , 785 (2nd Cir.) (“While a medical residency program is largely an academic undertaking, it also is an employment relationship.”), cer t. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Display Research Laboratories, Inc. v. Telegen Corp.
ater events may not create jurisdiction where none existed at the time of filing.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ferrara v. Superintendent, New York State Police
the nature and contours of a specific property interest are defined by some source independent of the constitution
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shub v. Hankin
The court recognized that “not every contractual benefit rises to the level of a constitutionally protected property interest.” Id. at 782.
discussed
Cited "see"
Beckwith v. Erie County Water Authority
See Ezekwo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775 (2d Cir.) (resident physician’s complaints regarding operation of hospital department were not protected speech), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991); Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 178 F.Supp.2d 164 (N.D.N.Y.2001) (comments by laboratory chief regarding the manner in which a personnel matter was handled do not constitute protected speech for purposes of the First Amendment), aff'd, 46 Fed.Appx. *222 651 (2d Cir.2002); Harris v. Merwin, 901 F.Supp. 509, 512 (N.D.N.Y.1995) (prof…
cited
Cited "see"
Belch v. Jefferson County
See Ezekwo v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 780-81 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Velasquez v. Goldwater Memorial Hospital
See Ezekwo v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 780-81 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
McNill v. New York City Department of Correction
See Ezekwo v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 782-83 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
White Plains Towing Corp. v. Patterson
Accordingly, a public employee who seeks to recover on the ground that he has been discharged because of the exercise of his First Amendment speech rights must establish, as an initial matter, that his speech may be "`fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern.'" Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. at 384 , 107 S.Ct. at 2897 (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. at 146 , 103 S.Ct. at 1689 ); see Ezekwo v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 781 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
White Plains Towing Corp. v. Patterson
"The determination whether a public employer has properly discharged an employee for engaging in speech requires 'a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.' " Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. at 384 , 107 S.Ct. at 2896 -97 (quoting Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. at 568 , 88 S.Ct. at 1734-35 ). 45 Accordingly, a public employee who seeks to recover on the ground that he has been discharged…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McMenemy v. City of Rochester
See Johnson v. Palma, 931 F.2d 203, 208 (2d Cir.1991) (allowing retaliation claim where the plaintiff alleged that his union retaliated against him by refusing to prosecute his grievance because the plaintiff had filed an administrative charge of racial discrimination against his employer); see also Christopher v. Stouder Memorial Hosp., 936 F.2d 870, 873-74 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 658 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991) (reporting trial court’s finding that defendant’s frequent reference to plaintiffs sex discrimination action against prior employer warranted inference th…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Cotto v. United Technologies Corp.
Id., 631-32; see also Ezekwo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775 , 781 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 122 S. Ct. 657 , 116 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rennels v. NME Hospitals, Inc.
(2×)
Contractors Inc., 847 F.Supp. 514, 519 (E.D.Tex.1994) (adopting Sibley rationale); see also Christopher v. Stouder Mem'l Hosp., 936 F.2d 870, 875 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 658 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991); Zaklama v. Mt.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Violissi v. City of Middletown
See also Ezekwo v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 782 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McIntyre v. Guild, Inc.
See, e.g, Ezekwo v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 781 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991) (complaints about hospital residency program were personal because the speaker’s primary aim was “to protect her own reputation and individual development as a doctor”); Hawkins v. Public Safety Dept., 325 Md. 621, 632-33 , 602 A.2d 712 (1992) (statement that “Hitler should have gotten rid of all you Jews” was an expression of anger rather than an attempt to stimulate a dialogue on the Holocaust).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Luck v. Mazzone
Thus, the First Amendment does not immunize from dismissal a public employee who speaks "not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only of personal interest." Id. at 147 , 103 S.Ct. at 1690 ; see, e.g., Ezekwo v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 781 (2d Cir.) (medical resident's complaints about aspects of residency program that negatively affected her were "personal in nature and generally related to her own situation," and hence dismissal on account of those complaints did not violate the First Amendment), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Luck v. Mazzone
Thus, the First Amendment does not immunize from dismissal a public employee who speaks “not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only of personal interest.” Id. at 147 , 103 S.Ct. at 1690 ; see, e.g., Ezekwo v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 781 (2d Cir.) (medical resident’s complaints about aspects of residency program that negatively affected her were “personal in nature and generally related to her own situation,” and hence dismissal on account of those complaints did not violate the First Amendment), cert. denied, 502 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carparts Distribution Center, Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler's Association of New England, Inc.
See also Christopher v. Stouder Memorial Hospital, 936 F.2d 870, 875 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 658 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991) (interpreting Title VII, court stated that “a plaintiff is protected if the'defendant is one who significantly affects access of any individual to employment opportunities”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Doe on Behalf of Doe v. St.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Charlton v. Paramus Board of Education
Inc., 814 F.Supp. 251, 260-61 (N.D.N.Y.1993) (ADEA); Berry v. Stevinson Chevrolet, 804 F.Supp. 121, 135-36 (D.Colo.1992) (Title VII); cf. EEOC v. Ohio Edison Co., 7 F.3d 541, 544-45 (6th Cir.1993); see also Christopher v. Stouder Memorial Hosp., 936 F.2d 870, 875-77 (6th Cir.) (focusing on ability to "affect" employment opportunities in analyzing Title VII section 704 retaliation claim), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 658 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991). 23 Using a narrow, literal reading of Title VII, other courts of appeals have held that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII becomes …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Charlton v. Paramus Board of Education
Inc., 814 F.Supp. 251, 260-61 (N.D.N.Y.1993) (ADEA); Berry v. Stevinson Chevrolet, 804 F.Supp. 121, 135-36 (D.Colo.1992) (Title VII); cf. EEOC v. Ohio Edison Co., 7 F.3d 541, 544-45 (6th Cir.1993); see also Christopher v. Stouder Memorial Hosp., 936 F.2d 870, 875-77 (6th Cir.) (focusing on ability to “affect” employment opportunities in analyzing Title VII section 704 retaliation claim), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 658 , 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
NU-LIFE CONST. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York
A line of cases deal with public speech in the realm of government employment holding that in determining whether there was a violation of First Amendment rights, it is the role of the courts to “balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees” (Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568 , 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 [1968]; see also Ezekwo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 9…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation
v.
Ezekwo
v.
Ezekwo
No. 91-672.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 16, 1991.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. California (1) · N.D. New York (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.