Crown v. Danby Fire Dist.

• Decision Date: 31 March 2016
• Docket Number: 5:13-CV-269 (FJS/DEP)
• Citation: 178 F.Supp.3d 41
• Parties: Adam Crown, Plaintiff, v. Danby Fire District, Danby Volunteer Fire Company, Pat Caveney, Richard Oltz, Ralph Bowles, Wayne Holden, Matt Cooper, and John Gaden, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

178 F.Supp.3d 41

Adam Crown, Plaintiff,

v.Danby Fire District, Danby Volunteer Fire Company, Pat Caveney, Richard Oltz, Ralph Bowles, Wayne Holden, Matt Cooper, and John Gaden, Defendants.

5:13-CV-269 (FJS/DEP)

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed March 31, 2016

BLOOM & BLOOM, PC, 530 Blooming Grove Turnpike, OF COUNSEL, KEVIN D. BLOOM, ESQ., New Windsor, New York 12553, Attorneys for Plaintiff

OFFICE OF ROBERT N. ISSEKS, 6 North Street, OF COUNSEL, ROBERT N. ISSEKS, ESQ., Middletown, New York 10940, Attorneys for Plaintiff

TADEO & SHAHAN, LLP, Empire Building, 472 South Salina Street, Suite 700, OF COUNSEL, STEVEN C. SHAHAN, ESQ., Syracuse, New York 13202, Attorneys for Defendants

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

SCULLIN

, Senior Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Adam Crown brings this case against Defendants Danby Fire District (“Fire District”), Danby Volunteer Fire Company (“Fire Company”), Pat Caveney, Richard Oltz, Ralph Bowles, Wayne Holden, Matt Cooper, and John Gaden. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a First Amendment retaliation claim in connection with Plaintiff raising safety and health issues within Defendants Fire Company and Fire District. See generally Dkt. No. 1, Complaint. Currently before the Court are the parties' motions for summary judgment. See Dkt. Nos. 30, 51.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The parties and conduct underlying Plaintiff's cause of action

Plaintiff joined Defendant Fire Company in January of 2007. See Admin. R. at 20.¹ His association with Defendant Fire Company ended on March 23, 2010, when he resigned. See Dkt. No. 65–17, Pl.'s Ex. “12.” Defendant Chief John Gaden is the chief of Defendant Fire Company and held that position during the entire interval at issue in this case. See Dkt. No. 65–25, Gaden Dep., at 5:3-6. Defendant Fire District is Defendant Fire Company's governing body. See Admin. R. at 366, 657. Defendants Caveney, Oltz, Bowles, Holden, and Cooper were the commissioners of Defendant Fire District during the time interval at issue. See Dkt. No. 58–3, Defs.' Ex. “LL,” at 2. Additionally, Defendant Commissioners Holden, Oltz, and Bowles were members of Defendant Fire Company during the time interval at issue in this case. See Admin. R. at 173-77.

During Plaintiff's membership in Defendant Fire Company, he perceived a variety of safety and health issues with respect to Defendant Fire Company's management and operations. Plaintiff raised such issues frequently and often publicly. For example, in the spring of 2008, Plaintiff openly opposed voting to admit an individual into Defendant Fire Company who had not fulfilled the requirements for membership according to Defendant Fire Company's bylaws. See Admin. R. at 173-77. He wrote to Defendant Chief Gaden detailing this objection and requesting official action and also wrote to Defendant Commissioners. See Dkt. No. 53–8, 55–5, Defs.' Exs. “M,” “T.” Plaintiff also made multiple requests for information in connection with Defendant Fire Company's training, response records, injury records, and the like. See Dkt. Nos. 53–10, 55–11 Defs.' Exs. “O,” “Z.”

Another core issue from Plaintiff's perspective was Defendant Fire Company members being assigned to and undertaking fire rescue tasks for which they had not been properly trained. Plaintiff raised such issues in company meetings, and one of Defendant Commissioners told him that he was going to “too far.” See, e.g. , Dkt. No. 30–13, Pl.'s Ex. “6f,” at 78. Plaintiff also spoke to a number of individuals outside Defendants Fire Company and Fire District about his concern that Defendant Fire Company was operating unsafely including, among others, the Tompkins County Fire Supervisor. See Admin. R. at 174. He also published a blog concerning fire safety in the Town of Danby that supported candidates for fire commissioner, and he ran for Danby fire commissioner twice on a platform based upon, among other things, the issues noted. See id. at 754; Dkt. No. 52–2, Crown Dep., at 46.² Plaintiff testified that the reaction to his concerns was at best indifferent and at worst hostile; other members of Defendant Fire Company testified that they were treated poorly within Defendant Fire Company because of their relationship with Plaintiff. See Admin. R. at 328.

During his membership in Defendant Fire Company, Plaintiff pursued an ambitious schedule of training and classes at the New York Fire Academy of Fire Science at Montour Falls in Schuyler County. See Admin. R. at 62-64, 480-87. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Fire Company's protocol with respect to training was informal and that in practice members of Defendant Fire Company generally could take those classes they wished to take so long as they paid the expenses themselves. See id. at 65, 75-76; see also Dkt. No. 30–13, Pl.'s Ex. “6f,” at 133 (providing that ‘[a]ll active members [of Defendant Fire Company] will need approval of the Chief and the Board of Fire Commissioners before enrolling in any District funded courses (emphasis added)). One series of classes about which Plaintiff told Defendant Chief Gaden, and in which he enrolled, included Fire Officer I, II, and III. See id. at 23-24. Plaintiff further testified that Defendant Chief Gaden signed a blank enrollment form and instructed him to make photocopies of the signed form for the classes that Plaintiff wished to take. See id. at 24. Plaintiff then took the first two courses, Fire Officer I and II, and “sent in” his certificates of completion. See id. During this time, according to Plaintiff, Defendants did not raise any issue with respect to his taking classes at the Academy. See id. at 25. Further, it is undisputed that Plaintiff paid for all of his courses at the Academy.

On January 25, 2010, Plaintiff requested response data and membership rosters of Defendant Fire Company for the interval 1989-2009 together with certain historical information about Defendant Fire Company. See Dkt. No. 55–11, Defs.' Ex. “Z.” He did so in connection with a research project in his Fire Officer III course and to “anticipate future needs” of Defendant Fire Company. See id. He ultimately gained access to much of this information by way of a Freedom-of-Information-Law (“FOIL”) request that the Supreme Court, Tomkins County, upheld through an Article 78 proceeding. See Dkt. No. 60–4, Defs.' Ex. “SS,” at 4.

Defendant Chief Gaden testified that, when he learned of Plaintiff's January 25, 2010 request for information, he began to wonder how Plaintiff could take the Fire Officer III class without authorization. See Admin. R. at 530. He then retrieved Plaintiff's authorization form for the Fire Officer III course by way of a FOIL request. See id. Defendant Chief Gaden further testified that he did not remember authorizing Plaintiff to take the course. See id. at 669-72. It is undisputed that the Defendant Danby Fire Commissioners did not vote to approve Plaintiff's enrollment in the Fire Officer III course.

Defendant Chief Gaden then ordered Plaintiff to attend a meeting on March 12, 2010, where, he testified, he intended to ask Plaintiff about how he was able to enroll in the class. See id. at 546; Dkt. No. 56–6, Defs.' Ex. “EE.” Plaintiff asked for an alternate meeting time, asked Defendant Chief Gaden for the reason for the meeting, and challenged his authority for ordering Plaintiff to a meeting during his free time. See Dkt. No. 30–12, Pl.'s Ex. “6e,” at 140-48. When Plaintiff failed to appear for the meeting, Defendant Chief Gaden suspended him by way of a letter dated March 12, 2010. See Dkt. No. 56–8, Defs.' Ex. “GG.” The letter further ordered Plaintiff to appear at a meeting of the commissioners of Defendant Fire District on March 23, 2010. See id.

At the March 23, 2010 Fire District meeting, Plaintiff testified that he attempted to tape record the proceedings and that Defendant Fire District's attorney told him that he could not do so. See Admin. R. at 42. Plaintiff did acknowledge in his deposition testimony that he received a notice of hearing and that he was advised of his rights. See Dkt. No. 52–3, Pl.'s Dep., at 57, 58. He also testified in response to the same line of questioning that “I'm not sure the order of things” and that he was presented a notice of hearing only after agreeing to turn off his audio recording device. See id. at 56:21, 56:24-57:12. He further testified that, after he denied the charges, Defendant Commissioners left the room and Defendant Fire District's attorney told him, “if I didn't resign, I was going to be subject to departmental charges and criminal charges.” See id. at 58:21-59:6, 61:6-9; Dkt. No. 52–4, Pl.'s Dep., at 102 (recalling that “[Attorney] Butler said I would be charged with criminal charges if I did not resign”).

According to Defendants, Plaintiff was suspended and subsequently charged for disobeying Defendant Chief Gaden's order to meet with him and also for submitting allegedly forged authorization forms for the Fire Officer II and III classes. See Dkt. No. 57–3, Defs.' Ex. “JJ.”

At their depositions, Defendant Commissioners had varying degrees of recollection of Plaintiff, of his speech while he was a member of Defendant Fire Company, and of whether they voted to bring disciplinary charges against him. Defendant Commissioner Caveney testified that Plaintiff was in frequent communication with Defendant Commissioners expressing his concerns that the chief officers of the Defendant Fire Company were not capable and that Defendant Commissioners did not have proper oversight over them. See Dkt. No. 59–2, Caveney Dep., at 7:20-8:10. He also testified that Defendant Chief Gaden did not specifically tell him that Plaintiff had forged his signature. See id. at 23:16-20.

Additionally, Defendant Commissioner Bowles testified that he did not recall voting on Plaintiff's disciplinary charges. See Dkt. No. 65–22, Bowles Dep., at 7:24-8:4. Defendant Commissioner Holden testified that Defendant Commissioners did vote to charge Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 65–23, Holden Dep.,...