R. Michael Cestaro v. Clarissa M. Rodriguez, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Chair of the New York State Workers' Compensation Board, et al.

In a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which a public employee alleges First Amendment retaliation, does the government successfully LQYRNH WKH DIÀUPDWLYH GHIHQVH UHFRJQL]HG E\ this Court in Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) – i.e., that the government employer would have taken the same action anyway for reasons other than the employee’s Constitutionally-protected speech – by construing aspects of the speech itself as objectionable behavior for Mt. Healthy purposes?

In a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which a public employee alleges First Amendment retaliation, is the plaintiff required to come forward with evidence tending to prove that the government employer acted with the subjective intent to deprive the plaintiff of his First Amendment rights? It is respectfully submitted that the above questions must be answered in the negative.