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.”