Council seeks to dismiss ‘meritless’ Paladino suit

The City Council, led by Speaker Julie Menin, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Councilmember Vickie Paladino over their move to discipline her for Islamophobic comments. Photo by Emil Cohen/NYC Council Media Unit

By Ryan Schwach

The City Council is asking a judge to dismiss Queens Councilmember Vickie Paladino’s suit against the legislative body.

The motion to dismiss calls the Queens’ lawmaker’s First Amendment suit against the Council – which she brought after the Council moved to charge Paladino for Islamophobic social media posts – “meritless” and “absurd.”

Paladino’s suit argued that the ethics inquiry into her posts was politically motivated and that any attempt to censure her messages, including one that called for the “expulsion of Muslims from Western nations,” is a violation of her First Amendment rights to free speech.

In a 37-page motion filed on Monday, the city’s corporation counsel argued that Paladino’s case should be dismissed.

“Petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied because she cannot show likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balance of hardships in her favor, or that an injunction would be in the public’s interest,” the court motion reads.

“Petitioner offers only conclusory allegations of irreparable harm caused by the prospective disciplinary hearing, but her desire to avoid disciplinary proceedings does not constitute irreparable harm and is outweighed by the public’s interest in a well-functioning legislature,” it continued. “For the following reasons, Petitioner’s motion for an injunction should be denied and her Petition should be dismissed.”

Last month, the City Council’s Committee on Rules, Privileges, Elections, Standards and Ethics brought charges against Paladino, alleging that her Islamophobic social media posts were disorderly and violated the Council’s “anti-harassment and discrimination policy.”

The charges and inquiry into Paladino’s comments were expedited and supported by City Council Speaker Julie Menin. The committee has yet to weigh in on any potential punishment for Paladino.

Paladino’s suit against the Council argued that the comments were a matter of personal political opinion, and could not be reprimanded by her fellow legislators because her posts were made on a personal X account and were not explicitly directed at any employee of the Council.

City Councilmember Vickie Paladino and her lawyer Jilm Walden will respond to the City Council’s motion to dismiss by March 30. File photo by Gerardo Romo / NYC Council Media Unit

The Council’s attorneys called that argument “absurd” in their Monday motion, because she has “Councilwoman” in the account’s name.

“Petitioner’s contention that her tweets have no nexus to her Council business because they were made from her ‘personal account,’ is absurd,” the motion reads. “Petitioner chose to display her name on her allegedly ‘private’ social media account as ‘Councilwoman Vickie Paladino.’”

“Petitioner is not afforded blanket protection from consequences stemming from her social media statements,” the motion added. “The Council may, within limits, discipline Petitioner for her speech.”

The motion further argued that although her comments were not directed at councilmembers or Council employees, they “raise[d] alarms.”

“The Council has Muslim employees and it takes seriously its duty to protect its employees from hateful or discriminatory speech by people in positions of power within the body, including councilmembers,” the motion said.

In her suit, Paladino argued that her fellow lawmakers were not treated the same or charged by the ethics committee for what she described as similar political comments, including when progressive Councilmember Chi Ossé called the Queens Republican a “slimy…white supremasist.”

“Unlike her Democratic colleagues…[Paladino] is being singled out for a formal, adversarial trial designed to brand her publicly as a violator of human rights policies,” the suit read. “This selection is based impermissibly on her political affiliation and viewpoint.”

The Council argued there was a difference between Paladino’s comments and the comments she cited in her suit. They also said that Paladino excluded cases where councilmembers were previously punished for remarks they made.

“Two of Petitioners’ four comparators indeed faced consequences for their alleged acts, as Petitioner herself concedes: they lost coveted committee positions,” the motion read. “None of the four comparators’ alleged misconduct involved statements made on verified social media accounts featuring their official title, like Petitioner’s tweets here.”

Paladino has to respond to the motion by March 30, a week ahead of a scheduled court hearing on April 7.

Jim Walden, a former prosecutor and mayoral candidate who is representing Paladino in the case, said he doesn’t think the motion to dismiss is going to stick.

“They raise a bunch of technical defenses that I don't think any of them are gonna fly with the court,” Walden told the Eagle on Tuesday.

Walden said that their response will include more examples of the Council choosing to discipline some lawmakers and letting others off the hook.

"They're just ignoring the fact that they can't pick and choose,” he said. “If they're going to include personal media in the ‘workplace’ as they're doing it against Vickie, they can't actively prosecute based on their view of what speech is good and what speech is bad.”