United States District Court, D. Connecticut
THOMAS C. AUSTIN Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, Defendant.
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff
Thomas C. Austin (“Austin”) filed suit against
the City of Bridgeport (“Bridgeport”). He alleges
that Bridgeport terminated his employment in violation of his
right to free speech under the First Amendment (count one);
his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
(count two); his right to free speech under Connecticut
General Statutes § 31-51q (count three); and his rights
under the Bridgeport City Charter (count four). Bridgeport
filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts. For the
reasons set forth below, Bridgeport’s motion is DENIED.
I.
FACTS
The
following facts, which are taken from the parties’
Local Rule 56(a) statements and supporting exhibits, are
undisputed unless otherwise indicated.
A.
Austin’s Hiring & Bridgeport’s Civil Service
System
During
Mayor Finch’s term in office, Deputy Director of Labor
Relations Tom McCarthy asked Austin if he would be interested
in working for Bridgeport as a Senior Labor Relations
Officer. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶¶ 24, 27; ECF No. 38 at
¶¶ 24, 27. Austin submitted a cover letter and
resume, and interviewed for the position with Director of
Labor Relations Larry Osborne. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶ 31; ECF
No. 38 at ¶ 31. He did not go through a competitive
civil service process or take a written test. ECF No. 32-1 at
¶¶ 35-36; ECF No. 38 at ¶¶ 35-36. He was
hired and began serving in the position on July 3, 2012. ECF
No. 32-1 at ¶¶ 1, 32; ECF No. 38 at ¶¶ 1,
32.
Before
taking the position, Austin had worked in private law
practice doing real estate closings, criminal work,
matrimonial law, and some employment law. ECF No. 32-1 at
¶ 28; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 28.
The
Charter of the City of Bridgeport (“City
Charter”) delineates two types of civil service
employees: classified and unclassified. ECF No. 32-1 at
¶ 9; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 9. These two types of
employees are set out and defined in Section 205(a) of the
City Charter:
(a) The civil service of the city is hereby divided into the
unclassified and classified service. The unclassified service
shall comprise: (a) The mayor and all officers elected by the
people; (b) all executive offices or positions specifically
created by charter and the method of filling which is
governed by specific and express provisions of the charter,
including the civil service commissioners, superintendent of
schools, assistant superintendent of schools, superintendent
of the department of public welfare, with the exceptions
hereinafter noted; (c) members of boards and commissions
appointed by the mayor and serving without pay; (d) members
of any board or commission appointed by, the city council;
(e) all classes of teachers in the school system of the city,
so far as their original appointments hereto are concerned;
(f) the deputy director of public works, the assistant city
treasurer, the assistant town clerk, the assistant city
attorney and the assistant city engineer.
The classified service shall include all other offices or
positions existing at the time of the passage of this act or
thereafter created, including all positions and offices in
the police department, including that of chief of police, and
all positions and offices in the fire department including
that of fire chief.
ECF No. 38-1; Section 205(a). The parties agree that the
position of Senior Labor Relations Officer does not fall into
any of the unclassified categories enumerated in Section
205(a), ECF No. 32-2 at 26; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 5, and that
the position came into existence after the adoption of the
City Charter, ECF No. 32-1 at ¶ 14; ECF No. 38 at ¶
14.
To
establish a position in the classified service, Bridgeport
city officials must follow the procedural requirements set
out in Section 206(d) of the City Charter:
Whenever the appointing authority of any department desires
to establish a new permanent position in the classified
service, the personnel director shall make or cause to be
made an investigation of the need of such position and report
his findings to the commission. If upon consideration of the
facts the commission determines that the work of the
department can not be properly and effectively carried on
without the position, it shall classify and allocate the new
position to the proper class after the position has been
established by the city council. If the commission determines
that the position is not necessary and that the work of the
department can be properly and effectively carried on without
the position, it shall promptly transmit such determination
to the city council. Such determination by the commission
shall be final unless the city council, within two months of
the date of such disapproving action by the commission, shall
by its duly enacted resolution approve the establishment of
such position. In such event the final action of the city
council shall be promptly transmitted to the commission and
the commission shall allocate the position or positions
therein approved to its proper class in the classification
plan. All classifications and allocations made pursuant to
this subsection shall be based on the same procedure and
formula called for in subsections (a) and (b) of this
Section.
ECF No. 38-5 at 2-3; Section 206(d). The parties agree that
these procedures were not followed with respect to the
position of Senior Labor Relations Officer. ECF No. 32-1 at
¶¶ 12-14; ECF No. 38 at ¶¶ 12-14.
Unclassified
employees either have set terms of office or serve at the
pleasure of the Mayor. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶ 11; ECF No. 38
at ¶ 11. Those who serve at the pleasure of the Mayor
may be terminated because of a change in administration. ECF
No. 32-1 at ¶ 11; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 11. Classified
employees cannot be terminated unless such termination is for
“just cause, ” and the employee is given notice
of the termination and an opportunity to appeal and be heard
regarding the termination. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶ 10; ECF No.
38 at ¶ 10. Section 223 of the City Charter governs the
termination of classified employees and provides, in relevant
part, as follows:
No person or employee holding a permanent office or position
in the classified service shall be removed, discharged or
reduced, except for just cause which shall not be political
or religious. No. such person shall be removed, discharged or
reduced unless the appointing authority first gives him
notice person the opportunity to respond. A copy of any such
notice of the proposed action and the basis for it and
affords such person the opportunity to respond. A copy of any
such notice shall immediately be forwarded to the commission.
. . .
Within three days after the removal, discharge or reduction,
an appeal may be made to the commission, in writing, by the
employee so removed, discharged or reduced. The commission,
on receiving such notice of appeal, shall set a date for a
hearing or investigation of the reasons for the removal,
discharge or reduction . . . . The civil service commission,
or any committee appointed by said commission, shall conduct
the hearing or investigation. The employee appealing shall
have full opportunity to be heard and may be represented by
counsel of his own choosing or by a duly authorized member of
the employee organization of which he is a member . . . . The
decisions and findings of the commission, or of the
investigation committee, when approved by the commission,
shall be final and shall be filed, in writing, with the
personnel director and shall be forthwith certified to and
enforced by the head of the department or appointing
authority. . . . The decisions and findings of the commission
referred to in this Section may be appealed from the person
adversely affected thereby to any judge of the superior court
. . . .
ECF No. 38-8; Section 223.
Bridgeport
asserts that David Dunn, who was the Labor Relations Officer
for Bridgeport from 1985 to 1990 or 1991, was “an
unaffiliated, unclassified employee.” ECF No. 32-1 at
¶¶ 7, 18. It further asserts that Dunn’s
successors in the role, Herbert Grant and Lawrence Osborne,
were also “unclassified and appointed to this
position.” ECF No. 32-1 at ¶ 18. Bridgeport points
to Dunn’s testimony to support these assertions. Austin
argues that “Dunn’s statement is an
uncorroborated, self-serving statement of an employee of the
defendant” and therefore “it cannot, without
corroboration, support the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment, especially since the claim conflicts with
the express provisions of § 205 of the city
charter.” ECF No. 38 at ¶ 18.
B.
Cavalli Trial
On
January 19, 2016, Anthony Cavalli, President of the
Bridgeport City Supervisors Association (“BCSA”),
filed suit against Bridgeport in Connecticut Superior Court.
ECF No. 32-1 at ¶ 38; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 38. Austin
asserts that Bridgeport had refused to recognize its
obligations under a collective bargaining agreement based on
its claim that the agreement had not been properly ratified,
ECF No. 38 at 23 ¶ 29, and that Cavalli and BCSA brought
the suit to force Bridgeport to comply with the terms of the
agreement, Id. at 23 ¶ 30. Austin was called to
testify at the trial about the negotiation of the agreement
and the ratification process; he testified on February 25 and
29, 2016. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶ 39; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 39
& 23-24 ¶¶ 31-32. Phil White, another Labor
Relations Officer, also testified in this matter. ECF No.
32-1 at ¶ 41; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 41. White is still
employed as a Senior Labor Relations Officer. ECF No. 32-1 at
¶ 41; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 41.
Judge
Bellis of the Connecticut Superior Court ruled against
Bridgeport. ECF No. 38 at ¶ 33. In so ruling, she made
the following statements:
The court vehemently rejects any claims that Mr.
McCarthy’s or Mr. Austin’s acts or testimony may
have been influenced by the fact that they would benefit
financially from the new contract.
ECF No. 38-10 at 5.
The Court finds that there is no credible evidence that
Messrs. McCarthy or Austin acted adversely to the
City’s interest, that they acted in a self-serving
manner, or that they abandoned the interests of the City. The
contract at issue was negotiated by individuals, including
Messrs. McCarthy and Austin, at the direction of the City and
within the scope of their authority to do so. In fact, it was
their job to do so, and it was done with the full knowledge
of their employer, the City of Bridgeport.
And although the City abandoned its position that Mr.
McCarthy and Mr. Austin were acting against the interests of
the City, the Court notes nonetheless that the City’s
original position that they were not doing so was not
meritorious and frankly does not appear to be made in good
faith based upon the evidence that was presented during the
trial.
ECF No. 38-10 at 6.
C.
Austin’s Termination
Joe
Ganim succeeded Bill Finch as Mayor of Bridgeport in December
2015. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶ 42; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 42.
After Ganim took office, McCarthy’s employment was
terminated and Janene Hawkins became the Director of Labor
Relations. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶¶ 8, 46-47; ECF No. 38
at ¶¶ 8, 46-47. Hawkins, in consultation with the
City Attorney’s office, the Chief Administrative
Officer’s office, and the Mayor’s office, made
the decision to terminate Austin. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶ 50;
ECF No. 38 at ¶ 50. Austin’s employment was
terminated on July 8, 2016. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶¶ 4,
48; ECF No. 38 at ¶¶ 4, 48. The termination letter
included the following language:
This letter is official notice that your employment in the
Office of Labor Relations is terminated effective immediately
in compliance with the authority granted by the Charter of
the City of Bridgeport and the rules and regulations of the
Civil Service Commission as they relate to unaffiliated,
appointed, non-union employees.
ECF No. 32-1 at ¶ 49; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 49; ECF No.
32-8.
On or
about September 13, 2016, Austin appealed his termination to
the Civil Service Commission on the basis that he was a
member of the classified civil service. ECF No. 32-1 at
¶ 52; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 52. His appeal was discussed
at the May 9, 2017 Civil Service Commission Regular Meeting.
ECF No. 32-1 at ¶ 53; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 53. He was
notified on May 11, 2017 that his appeal had been denied. ECF
No. 32-1 at ¶ 54; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 54. The Civil
Service Commission denied his appeal because it concluded
that he was a mayoral appointment and therefore an
unclassified employee whose employment was terminated with
the change in mayoral administration. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶
54; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 54.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The
court must grant a motion for summary judgment if the moving
party shows “that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and [that it] is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is
“material” if it “might affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law, ” and a dispute is
“genuine” if “a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party” based on it.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). If a motion for summary judgment is supported by
documentary evidence and sworn affidavits and
“demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact, ” the nonmoving party must do more than
assert the existence of some unspecified disputed material
facts or “rely on conclusory allegations or
unsubstantiated speculation.” Robinson v. Concentra
Health Servs., Inc.,781 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir. 2015)
(citation omitted). The party opposing the motion for summary
judgment “must come forward with specific evidence
demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute of ...