Judge declines to rule in Paladino case, questions Council’s harassment claims
/
City Councilmember Vickie Paladino appeared in court alongside her lawyer Jim Walden as she attempted to put a stop to disciplinary hearings from the Council over her Islamophobic social media posts. Eagle photo by Ryan Schwach
By Ryan Schwach
A Manhattan judge this week declined to rule from the bench on whether the City Council should halt its ethics case against Queens Republican Councilmember Vickie Paladino.
Judge Sabrina Kraus on Tuesday heard arguments from Paladino and the Council about the Queens lawmaker’s lawsuit, in which she accused the Council of violating her First Amendment rights when they said a series of Islamophobic social media posts she made qualified as workplace harassment.
While Kraus didn’t make an immediate ruling, she appeared critical of the Council’s argument against Paladino. Kraus questioned how the statements Paladino made – which included calling for the expulsion of Muslims from western nations – would rise to workplace harassment.
“I don't see how a tweet on a personal account or statements on a personal account disrupt the Council proceedings,” she said during the city’s portion of the arguments at 60 Centre Street on Tuesday.
She also seemed to question the motivation behind the Council’s actions, picking up on an argument Paladino has made, accusing the Democratic majority of singling out a Republican member.
“It does seem like the majority is attacking the minority, right?” Kraus said.
The judge also seemed to shoot down expulsion as a potential consequence of the Council's forthcoming ethics case against Paladino, and pushed the two parties to reach some sort of agreement out of court before the Council’s proceedings officially begin.
The judge said that Paladino “seems like somebody who’s willing to work with [the Council],” noting that she deleted the post that led to the charges after being asked to do so by City Council Speaker Julie Menin – subsequent posts expressing similar anti-Muslim statements have remained on Paladino’s feed despite pushback.
The Tuesday hearing was Paladino’s second appearance in court in her case against the Council for disciplinary actions it’s taken against her for the posts.
Paladino claimed the charges violated her First Amendment rights. The Council has moved to dismiss the lawsuit, calling it “meritless” and “absurd.”
While the Council’s own hearings against the lawmaker have yet to begin, an injunction from the judge could halt the proceedings entirely.
Outside the courthouse, Paladino said she was pleased with the hearing and the judge’s remarks.
“This was a very, very well-read judge,” she said. “She understood everything that was going on.”
She added that she would be willing to come to an agreement with the Council outside of court.
“Anybody who knows Vickie Paladino knows that Vickie Paladino is always looking to work something out,” she said. “I am not some narrow-minded sort of person.”
Her attorney, former mayoral candidate Jim Walden, said he hopes a permanent injunction is granted, which would put an end to the Council’s disciplinary proceedings against the Queens councilmember.
Toward the end of the hearing, Kraus characterized Paladino’s comments as “problematic,” and “hateful,” but argued that even hateful speech is protected.
When asked about the judge’s characterization, Paladino said statements made by Democratic and progressive councilmembers have been equally hateful but not met with the same disciplinary threat.
“I have never, ever in a million years, thought to bring an ethics investigation against any one of them,” she said. “Why is that? Because they are entitled to their right to free speech.”
Walden continued to defend his client's comments.
“There was not an intent there to say all Muslims should be deported,” he said. “She doesn't believe that, and she's got many Muslim constituents that she cares very much about.”
