## Facts

- Craig Matthews was an NYPD patrol officer assigned to the 42nd Precinct; his duties included responding to 911 calls, patrolling, and transporting prisoners.
- Precinct supervisors allegedly implemented an arrest-quota policy requiring officers to meet monthly targets for arrests, summonses, and stop-and-frisks; a “point system” allegedly rewarded certain summonses and penalized others.
- Matthews believed the policy pressured officers to make unjustified arrests/summonses, constrained officer discretion, and harmed community relations.
- From 2009 to 2011, Matthews repeatedly complained to precinct leadership about the quota policy, including discussions with commanding officers.
- Matthews alleged community members also raised similar quota concerns to precinct leadership.
- Matthews claimed retaliation for his complaints, including punitive assignments, denial of overtime and leave, negative evaluations, and separation from his long-time partner.
- Matthews filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment (and state constitutional) retaliation based on his internal complaints.

## Issues

1. Whether Matthews’s internal complaints about an arrest-quota policy were made pursuant to his official duties (unprotected under *Garcetti*) or as a citizen on a matter of public concern (protected).
2. Whether the existence of a broad departmental duty to report wrongdoing made Matthews’s policy complaints part of his official duties.
3. Whether the employer was entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the speech was not constitutionally protected.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment for defendants and remanded.
- The court held Matthews spoke as a citizen, not pursuant to his official duties, when he complained to precinct commanders about the quota policy.
- The court concluded the speech addressed matters of public concern, including legality of enforcement actions, police discretion, and police-community relations.
- The court rejected reliance on a generalized policy-duty provision to define the constitutional boundary between employee and citizen speech.
- The court noted Matthews used a channel with a “civilian analogue” because ordinary citizens could (and did) raise similar concerns to precinct leadership.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Garcetti v. Ceballos*, public-employee speech is unprotected when made pursuant to official duties; the inquiry is practical and job-specific.
- Speech is more likely citizen speech when it is not part of the employee’s core job tasks and concerns a topic the employee is not tasked to address as part of the job.
- Use of channels available to ordinary citizens (“civilian analogue”) supports classifying internal complaints as citizen speech.
- A broadly framed professional or policy duty to report wrongdoing cannot, by itself, convert generalized policy criticism into speech “pursuant to” official duties.
- Criticism of law-enforcement policies affecting legality, discretion, and community trust can constitute speech on matters of public concern.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that an NYPD patrol officer’s internal complaints to precinct leadership about an alleged arrest-quota policy were made as a citizen on matters of public concern and thus could receive First Amendment protection; it vacated summary judgment for defendants and remanded for further proceedings on retaliation and justification.


Matthews v. City of New York, 779 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2015)