Doyle v. Dukakis

• Decision Date: 16 May 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 85-0100-Y.
• Parties: Edward DOYLE, Plaintiff, v. Michael S. DUKAKIS, Amy Anthony, Marvin Siflinger, Bernard Singer and the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

634 F. Supp. 1441

Edward DOYLE, Plaintiff, v. Michael S. DUKAKIS, Amy Anthony, Marvin Siflinger, Bernard Singer and the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 85-0100-Y.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

May 16, 1986.

William J. Doyle, Doyle & Doyle, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Wade M. Welch, Boston, Mass., for defendants.

Alexander Gray, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Boston, Mass., for Michael Dukakis.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YOUNG, District Judge.

This is an action for declaratory relief and damages against Michael S. Dukakis, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ("the Governor"); the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (the "Agency"); Marvin Siflinger ("Siflinger"), Executive Director of the Agency; Bernard Singer ("Singer"), Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Agency; and Amy Anthony ("Anthony"), a member of the Agency Board and Secretary of the Executive Office of Communities and Development of the Commonwealth. The plaintiff, Edward Doyle ("Doyle") is a former employee of the Agency.

Doyle alleges that the defendants enumerated above have violated his civil rights by constructively discharging him in retaliation for his political support for and his personal association with former Governor Edward F. King. Specifically, Doyle asserts that his discharge violates both federal and state law which he sets forth as follows: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I),¹ 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (Count II), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11H and 11I (Count III), and the common law of torts (the intentional infliction of emotional distress) (Count IV). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies in part and allows in part the motions of the defendants for summary judgment.

I. Background

The plaintiff Doyle was employed by the Agency from April, 1980 until his alleged discharge in 1984. Doyle worked as Special Assistant to the Executive Director and was "on loan" to the Financial Department. In April, 1984, Doyle was reassigned to a position as Community Services Advisor. Doyle alleges that this reassignment constitutes a constructive discharge.²

Doyle admits he was a political supporter and friend of former Governor Edward F. King. On June 3, 1983, the Governor and Anthony met with then Agency Executive Director John Blake. Although the Governor and Blake recall this discussion differently, both agree that the Governor raised the subject of Doyle's employment at the Agency. Subsequent to this meeting, Siflinger succeeded Blake as Executive Director. It was Siflinger who actually transferred Doyle to the position of Community Services Advisor.

The parties dispute the reasons for Doyle's transfer. Doyle contends that he was transferred to his new position in retaliation for his association with and support of former Governor King. As a group, the defendants deny that Doyle's political activity or personal associations contributed to the decision. Rather, they argue that legitimate personnel concerns precipitated Doyle's transfer.

II. Discussion

The parties place before the Court various motions for summary judgment. In support of their position, each relies on various affidavits, depositions, and answers to interrogatories. Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., provides for summary judgment when the case at bar presents no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as matter of law. The instant matter raises a federal question based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to which all subsequent allegations relate.³ As a result, the Court first considers the motions for summary judgment on Count I.

Section 1983 provides in relevant part:

Every citizen who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity or other proceeding for redress.

The defendant in a § 1983 action must be a "person," a term of legal art which includes municipalities and local governments which may be sued for monetary, declaratory or injunctive relief, but only if the allegedly unconstitutional action occurs "pursuant to governmental `custom' even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decisionmaking channels." Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035-36, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). A municipality "cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor — in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory." Id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. at 2036.

A state is treated differently, however. Under Monell, its ancestors and its progeny, the Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional bar to suits against states in federal court. Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98, 104 S.Ct. 900, 906, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 339-40, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 1144, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 678, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1363, 39 L.Ed.2d 662, reh'g denied, 416 U.S. 1006, 94 S.Ct. 2414, 40 L.Ed.2d 777 (1974); Ford Motor Company v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 466-67, 65 S.Ct. 347, 351-52, 89 L.Ed.2d 389 (1945). But see Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3150, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Although four justices dissented, the Supreme Court recently restated this proposition: "Because of the Eleventh Amendment, States may not be sued in federal court unless they consent to it in unequivocal terms or unless Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of power, unequivocally expresses its intent to abrogate the immunity." Green v. Mansour, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 106 S.Ct. 423, 424, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985), citing Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 99, 104 S.Ct. at 907; see also Della Grotta v. State of Rhode Island, 781 F.2d 343, 345 (1st Cir.1986). A state may waive its sovereign immunity to suit in its own courts, however, and may also waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in the federal courts. Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 105 S.Ct. at 3143; Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 437, 2 S.Ct. 878, 879, 27 L.Ed. 780 (1883). This is well-established despite the maxim that subject matter jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent. See e.g., Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Ry. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884).

A suit challenging the constitutionality of a state official's action, however, is an exception to the general proposition that states cannot be sued in federal courts without their consent or explicit waiver, as such an action is not considered an action against the state. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60, 28 S.Ct. 441, 453-54, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). A legal fiction created by the Court in Young, this proposition regards the official's actions as state action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment but merely an individual wrong for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. This fiction effectively brings federal scrutiny to bear on actions previously unreachable and encourages full compliance by the states with the Constitution.

Even so, this convenient anomaly affects the remedy available to a prevailing party. The Supreme Court held in Young that the Eleventh Amendment does not prevent federal courts from granting prospective injunctive relief to prevent a continuing violation of federal law. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 155-56, 159, 28 S.Ct. at 452, 453. The Court, however, has refused to permit claims for retrospective relief. Green v. Mansour, 106 S.Ct. at 426 ("Both prospective and retrospective relief implicate Eleventh Amendment concerns, but the availability of prospective relief of the sort awarded in Ex Parte Young gives life to the Supremacy Clause.... But compensatory or deterrence interests are insufficient to overcome the dictates of the Eleventh Amendment." Id. at 426; Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 465 U.S. at 102-03, 104 S.Ct. at 909; Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. at 337, 99 S.Ct. at 1143; Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. at 668, 94 S.Ct. at 1358.

Thus, § 1983 will reach those acting "under color of" law, that is those "who carry a badge of authority of a state and represent it in some capacity whether they act in accordance with their authority or misuse it." Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 172, 81 S.Ct. 473, 476, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). This includes municipal corporations or state and local officials exercising the authority of the state, although private parties may also be sued.

Although a state officer can be enjoined under § 1983 from acting improperly, he or she cannot be required to make restitution for official conduct, however improper, because such an award would have to be paid from state coffers rather than from the individual's own pocket, and this would constitute an action for damages against the state — an action which the Eleventh Amendment bars. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). Injunctive relief is available for a continuing violation because it vindicates the federal interest in assuring the supremacy of federal law. Green v. Mansour, 106 S.Ct. at 426. A federal district court may, in the alternative, issue a declaratory judgment that a particular practice violates constitutional law. 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

Ordinarily a declaratory judgment will be appropriate if the case-or-controversy requirements of Art. III are met. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil, 312 U.S. 270, 61 S.Ct. 510, 85 L.Ed. 826 (1941) ("Basically, the question in each case is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.") Id. at 273, 61 S.Ct. at 512. This strict...