## Facts

- Scott Matusick, a White man, worked for the Erie County Water Authority (ECWA).
- In 2004, Matusick began dating an African American coworker, Anita Starks; they became engaged, later lived together, and ultimately married.
- Matusick also formed a close family relationship with Starks’s children.
- After coworkers and supervisors learned of the interracial relationship, Matusick presented evidence that he was subjected to repeated racial slurs, threats, and hostility tied to his relationship and household.
- Matusick reported the harassment to supervisors but did not file a formal human-resources complaint.
- ECWA brought disciplinary charges against Matusick under New York Civil Service Law § 75; after a hearing, the hearing officer recommended dismissal, and ECWA terminated Matusick in April 2006.
- Matusick sued ECWA and multiple ECWA officials in federal court, asserting (among other claims) § 1983 claims for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment right to intimate association and equal protection, along with related statutory and state-law claims.
- After a jury trial, Matusick prevailed on key claims, including § 1983 claims tied to discrimination and adverse action based on his interracial intimate relationship, and obtained compensatory damages and related relief.
- ECWA and individual defendants appealed, challenging liability, the effect of the prior § 75 proceeding, qualified immunity, municipal liability, and aspects of the damages and post-trial rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether Matusick’s engaged, cohabiting interracial relationship (and family life with his fiancée’s children) qualified as constitutionally protected “intimate association,” and whether adverse employment action based on that relationship violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings that Matusick was harassed and disciplined (including termination) because of race-based animus tied to his interracial relationship, in violation of equal protection and related claims.
3. Whether the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 intimate-association and equal-protection claims.
4. Whether ECWA could be held liable under § 1983 (including under Monell) based on actions by final policymakers and/or an ECWA policy or practice shown by supervisory participation or failure to stop known harassment.
5. Whether, and to what extent, the prior New York Civil Service Law § 75 hearing findings affected the federal case (including any preclusion or limiting effect) and whether the district court’s treatment of those findings required reversal.
6. Whether aspects of the damages and other remedial rulings (including punitive damages against individuals, if any, and related post-trial rulings) should be modified or remanded.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit largely affirmed the judgment recognizing that Matusick’s relationship with Starks—marked by engagement, cohabitation, and family life—fell within constitutional protection for intimate association.
- The court upheld the jury’s core findings that Matusick was subjected to race-based harassment and adverse employment action because of his interracial relationship, supporting liability on the principal § 1983 theories.
- The court rejected qualified-immunity defenses for the key individual defendants on the intimate-association and equal-protection claims, concluding the unlawfulness of targeting an employee for an interracial intimate relationship was clearly established at the relevant time.
- The court upheld § 1983 liability against ECWA where the proof permitted a finding that the constitutional violations were attributable to ECWA through policymaker action and/or an actionable policy, practice, or tolerated course of conduct.
- The court declined to treat the § 75 hearing as a bar to the jury’s determination of discriminatory motive and constitutional wrongdoing, and it did not overturn the verdict on that basis.
- The court affirmed much of the relief but also made limited modifications and remanded discrete remedial issues for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- The Constitution protects certain close personal relationships as “intimate association”; engagement, cohabitation, and family-like bonds may fall within that protection, not only formal marriage.
- A public employer violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments when it penalizes an employee because of the race of the person with whom the employee has a protected intimate relationship.
- Equal protection bars state actors from taking adverse action motivated by race-based animus, including animus expressed through hostility to interracial relationships.
- Qualified immunity does not protect individual officials when existing precedent would make clear to a reasonable official that the challenged conduct violates the Constitution.
- A municipality or public authority may be liable under § 1983 when the constitutional violation is attributable to municipal policy, practice, or decisionmaking by an official with final policymaking authority.
- Findings from a prior state administrative disciplinary hearing may have issue-preclusive effect only as to issues actually litigated and necessary to the result; they do not automatically resolve the separate question of discriminatory motive or constitutional violation in a later federal civil-rights trial.
- Punitive damages, when available, are assessed against individual defendants (not the municipality under § 1983) and depend on the proof and the governing limits applied by the court.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that Matusick’s interracial engagement and cohabiting family relationship qualified for constitutional protection as intimate association and that the record supported the jury’s finding that ECWA and certain officials harassed and terminated him because of that relationship, violating § 1983 equal-protection and intimate-association rights; it also denied qualified immunity to key individual defendants, upheld municipal liability, and remanded only for limited adjustments consistent with its rulings on remedies and related post-trial issues.


Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority, 757 F.3d 31 (2014)