a family member under the First Amendment. See id. at 44 (“[A] spouse’s claim that adverse action was taken solely against that spouse in retaliation for conduct of the other spouse should be analyzed as a claimed violation of a First Amendment right of intimate association.”); see also Garten v. Hochman, No. 08-CV-9425, 2010 WL 2465479, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2010) (“Courts in this circuit have acknowledged that a First Amendment right to intimate association is implicated ‘[w]here a plaintiff is allegedly retaliated against for the First Amendment activities of a family member.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Agostino v. Simpson, No. 08-CV-5760, 2008 WL 4906140, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2008))); Sutton v. Vill. of Valley Stream of N.Y., 96 F.Supp.2d 189, 192-93 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>). “Where the intimate association right at
holding that plaintiff had stated a claim for violation of his first amendment right to intimate association where he alleged that his employer harassed him in retaliation for his fathers political activities holding that the plaintiff had a right of privacy in the contents of a settlement agreement that stated that the plaintiff had sued his employer for failing to hire him because he was a single gay male and because his employer suspected that he had aids holding that student stated a claim for violation of his first amendment right to speech when he alleged that school officials prevented him from openly stating that he was homosexual and retaliated against him for doing so holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for wrongful discharge where he alleged he was discharged due to his political affiliation and activities holding that an adverse action taken solely against a spouse in retaliation for conduct of the other spouse should be analyzed as a claimed violation of a first amendment right of intimate association