Connolly v. City of Rutland

• Decision Date: 24 August 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2:09-CV-183
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Vermont
• Parties: Mary Shawn Connolly, Plaintiff, v. City of Rutland, Vermont, et al., Defendants.

Mary Shawn Connolly, Plaintiff, v. City of Rutland, Vermont, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:09-CV-183

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT

Dated: August 24, 2011

OPINION AND ORDER

(Docs. 39, 43, 47)

Plaintiff Mary Shawn Connolly commenced this civil action against her former employer, City of Rutland, and Rutland Mayor Christopher Louras on August 7, 2009. (Doc. 1.) Connolly alleges that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment with the Rutland Recreation and Parks Department. (Id.)

Defendants have filed a Joint Motion for Summary Judgment upon all of Connolly's claims. (Docs. 39.) Connolly opposes the Motion (Doc. 50), and has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 47). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) is GRANTED with respect to Connolly's claims arising under federal law; Connolly's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is DENIED; and Connolly's claims arising under state law are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Background

I. Relevant Facts

The following facts are taken from the parties' Local Rule 56 Statements and from exhibits submitted in connection with Connolly's Motion. (Docs. 39-2; 43-2; 47-2; 50-1; 55-1.)

A. The Parties

Plaintiff Mary Shawn Connolly commenced employment with Defendant City of Rutland's Recreation and Parks Department in August 2004. (Doc. 47-2 ¶ 1.) At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Defendant Christopher Louras was the mayor of the City of Rutland ("the City"). (Doc. 47-2 ¶ 14.) Connolly's full-time position title was Administrative Assistant, and she held this position until June 30, 2009. (Doc. 47-2 ¶¶ 11, 12, 14.) Connolly's employment with the City was not governed by any written contract or collective bargaining agreement. (Doc. 39-2 ¶ 2.)

B. Connolly's Termination

Under the Rutland City Charter, the mayor must prepare an annual budget and submit it to the City Board of Alderman on or before the first Monday in June. (Doc. 38-2 ¶ 3); City of Rutland Municipal Charter, 24 V.S.A. App. Ch. 9, § 11.3. On June 1, 2009, Mayor Louras presented his Fiscal Year 2010 budget to the Board of Alderman, emphasizing that the City's finances would require budget cuts resulting in a negative impact on services provided to taxpayers. Specifically, the letter introducing the mayor's budget stated:

I remind the Board of the letter I presented in January regarding the long term budget challenges facing the City of Rutland. As I stated in that letter,we are "down to bodies" as the only significant place we can turn in order to curtail tax increases that are driven by ever spiraling healthcare costs and contractual obligations.

This FY2010 budget reflects thirteen fewer employees than were funded in the FY09 budget.

(Doc. 47-16 at 2.) The budget included a proposal for two layoffs in the Recreation and Parks Department. (Doc. 47-17 at 2-3.)

On June 1, 2009, Connolly received a letter from Ejay Bishop, the Recreation and Parks Department Superintendent and Connolly's supervisor, informing her of her "proposed layoff":

This is to advise you that as a result of the current economic climate and the city-charter imposed tax cap, the reduction of your position of administrative assistant has been proposed effective the close of the current fiscal year. This proposed decision has nothing to do with your job performance, rather it is based on the position which we feel can be absorbed with the minimum impact on city services.

Prior to rendering a final decision on the proposal, you are entitled to a Loudermill¹ meeting with me. The purpose of a Loudermill meeting is to provide you an opportunity to offer any additional information to be considered prior to making a final decision concerning your proposed layoff. The meeting is purely optional on your part. If you do not wish to have a Loudermill meeting, you may present written materials for me to consider. If you would like to take either of these options, please let me know by the close of business on Friday, June 5th via the enclosed form.

(Doc. 47-20.) Attached to the letter was a form entitled "LOUDERMILL MEETING OPTION FORM." (Doc. 47-21.) Connolly opted to have the Loudermill meeting, which was held with Bishop on June 8, 2009. (Doc. 47-23.) At the meeting, Connollypresented a description of her responsibilities in the department and an explanation of why, in her opinion, her position should not be eliminated. (Doc. 39-3 at 7.)

At Bishop's deposition, he testified that he eliminated a Maintenance Specialist position from the budget at the same time he notified Connolly of her proposed layoff. (Doc. 39-6 at 3.) Bishop further testified that he did not know of any information Connolly could have presented at the Loudermill meeting that would have changed his mind about terminating her position. (Doc. 50-5 at 4.) Connolly testified in her deposition that she had no evidence that Defendants had other motivations for her termination besides their stated reason of lack of funds. (Doc. 39-3 at 5.)

Following the Loudermill meeting, Connolly received another letter, dated June 12, 2009, stating in relevant part:

[T]his is to advise you that a final decision has been made with regards to the reduction of your position of Administrative Assistant at the end of this fiscal year. As stated earlier, this action has been taken in light of the current economic climate and city-charter imposed tax cap. This decision has nothing to do with your job performance, rather it is based on the position which we feel can be absorbed with the minimum impact on city services.

As you know, prior to rendering a final decision on the proposal, you were entitled to a Loudermill meeting with me which you exercised on June 8[ ]. The purpose of a Loudermill meeting was to provide you an opportunity to offer any additional information to be considered prior to making a final decision concerning your proposed layoff. I listened and seriously considered the information you shared during that meeting, however I have decided to move forward with the reduction of your position of Administrative Assistant within this department effective the end of the business day on June 30, 2009.

(Doc. 47-23.)

On June 15, 2009, Connolly's attorney sent a letter to Bishop requesting a hearing before the Board of Civil Authority ("BCA"), stating:

I have been retained by . . . Connolly regarding her employment with the City of Rutland. Please consider this request for a hearing before the Board of Civil Authority pursuant to the Personnel Rules and Regulations manual for the City of Rutland regarding the letter Ms. Connolly received from Superintendent Ejay Bishop, dated June 12, 2009.

(Doc. 47-24.)

Bishop's response, dated June 19, 2009, explained that Connolly was not entitled to a hearing before the BCA because she had not been dismissed pursuant to the terms of the Personnel Rules:

Ms. Connolly has not been "demoted, dismissed or suspended" pursuant to the Personnel Manual. (See attached Section V - 2 of the personnel manual, which defines dismissal as a 'for cause' dismissal for "inefficiency or incapacity, insubordination, misconduct or immoral conduct, intoxication, offenses against the law, or other similar just cause.'") As I told Ms. Connolly in the original letter sent to her and subsequently in the meeting that you attended, this layoff has nothing to do with her job performance, but is solely related to economic and budgetary conditions. Therefore, since this is not a 'for cause' dismissal but rather an economic layoff, she is not entitled to a hearing before the BCA in this matter.

I made this decision since the personnel manual invests me with the responsibility of "administering the policies of the personnel manual" (See Section I - 3 attached).

(Doc. 47-25.)

Subsequently, on July 20, 2009, Bishop wrote a letter of recommendation for Connolly. (Doc. 39-11 at 2.) The letter was addressed generically to potential future employers ("To Whom it May Concern") and attested to Connolly's professionalism and her "interest and pride" in her work during her tenure with the Rutland Recreation andParks Department. (Id.) Bishop wrote that Connolly "was an asset to our department" and that he was "confident she will be a fine choice for your organization." (Id.)

On August 4, 2009, the BCA met to "consider jurisdiction of [the] BCA in layoffs." (Doc. 47-26.) Present at the meeting were Connolly's attorney, several aldermen, Mayor Louras, and City Attorney Andrew Costello. (Doc. 47-28.) The following day, Louras, as presiding officer over the BCA, issued a statement providing that the BCA "determines that [it] has no authority to hear appeals for lay-offs under the personnel manual as written and in effect on August 4, 2009." (Doc. 47-30.)

C. The City's Hiring of Two Part-Time Employees

After Connolly's termination, other existing employees in her department initially took over some of her former duties. (Doc. 50-5 at 8-9.) Additionally, on August 3, 2009, Bishop hired Brook Townslee, a former intern, to replace a part-time employee who had recently resigned. (Doc. 39-2 ¶ 32.) Townslee's position, which was for twenty-five hours per week, included some of Connolly's former duties. (Doc. 50-5 at 8-9.) On August 24, 2009, Bishop hired Mary Markowski, who had experience as an auditor, for fifteen hours per week. (Doc. 50-5 at 6, 9.) Markowski also performed some of Connolly's former duties. (Doc. 50-5 at 6.) Neither position was posted as a vacancy. (Doc. 50-5 at 8.) In a set of interrogatories, Connolly asked Defendants why they "did not attempt to notify" her of any "job opening or hiring opportunity." (Doc. 38-1 at 4.) Defendants' joint response stated that they did not inform her because she "had already filed suit against the city." (Id.)

II. Procedural History

Following the BCA's determination that it had no authority to hear Connolly's appeal, Connolly commenced this suit against the City and Mayor Louras...