A federal appeals court Wednesday overturned a lower court and said a lower court must consider a Binghamton, New York, Hispanic police official’s claims of racial discrimination.

Alan Quinones alleged he was racially harassed by members of the department and retaliated against for expressing concerns about discrimination, according to the ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in Alan Quinones v. City of Binghamton et al.

The U.S. district court in Syracuse had dismissed the case. A three-judge appeals court panel affirmed dismissal of the retaliation charge, but remanded the case for consideration of the discrimination issue.

Mr. Quinones joined the department as a patrol officer in 2008, was promoted to sergeant in 2012 and then to lieutenant in 2016, according to the ruling.

He alleged that since at least 2014 he had been subjected to “humiliation and ridicule” in his workplace. He said the department’s assistant chief repeatedly calling him “Ricky Ricardo”; mocked him when he spoke Spanish; said Mr. Quinones was good at “jumping fences”; and that Mr. Quinones had run with gangs and that he knew Mr. Quinones had stolen cars and picked locks in his youth, among the instances of discriminatory conduct.

Mr. Quinones said he had been retaliated against after he supported a black officer’s discrimination charge, and that this had hindered his career advancement.

The appeals court panel agreed with the lower court’s dismissal of Mr. Quinones’ retaliation charge. “Quinones fails to state a retaliation claim because he alleges no speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment for which defendants punished him,” it said.

The ruling said Mr. Quinones alleged he had addressed a matter of public concern during a July 2019 meeting with the city’s personnel director and corporation counsel to discuss his concerns about his career.

“Quinones’s stated motivation in speaking – to promote his own career – thus confirms that he did not speak on a matter of public concern,”’ the ruling said, in affirming the claim’s dismissal.

The district court did not consider Mr. Quinones’ discrimination claim because it was not enumerated in the complaint, it also said. “It is true that the complaint identifies only a single cause of action for retaliation and does not similarly label a cause of action for discrimination. But this failure is not fatal here,” it said.

The complaint sufficiently “‘informed (Defendants) of the factual basis for’ a discrimination claim despite his failure to enumerate it as a separate cause of action,” it said, in citing another case and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Mr. Quinones’ attorney, Binghamton-based  Ronald R. Benjamin, said in a statement, “I am disappointed that the court did not believe the issue of racism was not a matter of public concern and are taking a look at whether or not to request an en banc review.”

With respect to the discrimination claim, he said, “We plan to pursue that vigorously upon remand.”