Fasoli v. City of Stamford

• Citation: 64 F.Supp.3d 285
• Decision Date: 24 November 2014
• Docket Number: No. 3:11–CV–767 CSH.,3:11–CV–767 CSH.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: James FASOLI, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF STAMFORD, Earnest Orgera, and Michael Scacco, Defendants.

64 F.Supp.3d 285

James FASOLI, Plaintiff

v.CITY OF STAMFORD, Earnest Orgera, and Michael Scacco, Defendants.¹

No. 3:11–CV–767 CSH.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed Nov. 24, 2014.

John R. Williams, New Haven, CT, Richard N. Freeth, Freeth & Clay, LLP, Stamford, CT, for Plaintiff.

James M. Sconzo, Jonathan C. Sterling, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Hartford, CT, Lewis H. Chimes, Maria Eugenia Garcia Quintner, Law Office of Lewis Chimes LLC, Stamford, CT, Alan Neigher, Sheryle Levine, Byelas & Neigher, Westport, CT, for Defendants.

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff James Fasoli (“Fasoli”), a public employee of the City of Stamford (“City”), brings this action against the City, as well as Earnest Orgera (“Orgera”) and Michael Scacco (“Scacco”), both of whom are employed by the City. Fasoli alleges employment retaliation for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article First of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 31–51m, 31–51q, and 46a–60(a)(4) (Counts One through Five); retaliation and age discrimination, in violation respectively of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) & (d), and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”), Conn. Gen. Stats. 46a–60(a)(1) (Counts Six through Eight); invasion of privacy (Count Nine); and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count Ten). Plaintiff seeks indemnification by the City, pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 7–101a and 7–465, for damages he alleges Defendants have caused him (Count Eleven). Pending before the Court are Defendants' motions for summary judgment [Docs. 146, 152 & 173], each seeking summary disposition of all claims Plaintiff alleges in his Amended Complaint [Doc. 31]. For the reasons given below, summary judgment in favor of each Defendant is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

There is very little that is not disputed here. Nevertheless, and as the Court explains below, no genuine and material factual dispute that precludes summary judgment exists because, in opposition to Defendants' properly supported motions for summary judgment, Fasoli has presented nothing more than mere speculation and conjecture on key elements of his claims.

This Ruling begins with a recitation of the allegations in Fasoli's Amended Complaint. Additional factual background is derived from the evidentiary record generated by the extensive discovery conducted before these motions for summary disposition were filed.

At the time he filed his Amended Complaint, Fasoli was 66 years old and had been an Equipment Mechanic in the Vehicle Maintenance Department (“Vehicle Maintenance”), which is part of the City's Office of Operations (“Operations”),² since November 2005. Am. Compl. [Doc. 31] at ¶¶ 7, 18. For some of the time relevant to this action, Fasoli also was Secretary of the local union, Stamford Employees Local # 82 of UE # 222–CILU.³ See Doc. 173–48. Fasoli remains employed in Operations, but he now works in the Solid Waste Department.⁴

Orgera is Director of Operations, a position to which he was appointed on or about December 1, 2009 by the then-newly elected Mayor of Stamford, Michael Pavia, who took office on the same date. Orgera Dep. [Doc. 179–13] at 11:3–8, 13:18–20. Before that appointment, Orgera had been a City employee for approximately twenty years and had positions with the City including Traffic Maintenance Supervisor and Supervisor of Traffic and Road Maintenance. Id. at 11:14–12:5. Orgera did not have supervisory authority over Fasoli until he became Director in December 2009.

Scacco is the Manager of Vehicle Maintenance,⁵ a position he has held since March 2008. Scacco Aff. [Doc. 173–5] at ¶ 2. Scacco had supervisory authority over Fasoli from March 2008 to January 2010, and then again from November 2010 to September 2011. Id. at ¶ 88.

In his Amended Complaint [Doc. 31], Fasoli attributes the start of his workplace troubles to a letter he wrote to the City, in April 2008, reporting what he believed to be sexual harassment of a female co-worker, Charlene McArthur (“McArthur”).⁶ The letter, which was signed by Fasoli in his official capacity as Secretary of the local union, as well as John Perkins, who was President of the same, is addressed to the City's then-Director of Human Resources, Dennis Murphy, and copied to Benjamin Barnes (“Barnes”), the City's then-Director of Operations, Alex Tergis (“Tergis”), the City's then-Public Services Bureau Chief, and Dan Colleluori (“Colleluori”), then-Supervisor of Solid Waste (where McArthur worked). [Doc. 173–48.] According to Fasoli, on numerous occasions when McArthur returned to her car after work she would find pornographic magazines anonymously placed on the windshield. Fasoli was with McArthur on one such occasion. He believed the City was responsible for addressing the situation because McArthur parked her car in a lot for City employees. In addition to the letter, Fasoli also advised Barnes orally about McArthur's experience and “implored him to do something about it.” Am. Compl. [Doc. 31] at ¶ 25. In addition, Fasoli attended two meetings between McArthur and the City, and “advocated on her behalf with respect to the sexual harassment that she was experiencing.” Id. at ¶ 26. Fasoli maintains that “[w]ithin two months thereafter,” and “[a]s a result of [his speaking out on behalf of McArthur],” he was “targeted,” “retaliated against[,]” and “put on Defendants' ‘hit list[,]’ ” and that he “started receiving warnings for insubordination[ ] [and] ‘stealing time[,]’ ” and “was threatened with termination and [ ] subject[ed] to summary suspensions during 2008 and 2009.” Id. at ¶¶ 29–31.

Then, on or about January 4, 2010, Orgera, who had recently become Director of Operations, reassigned Fasoli from Vehicle Maintenance to Scofieldtown Yard, a facilityoperated by Operation's Solid Waste Department, which, as Fasoli maintains, “was generally understood to be built on a toxic waste site.” Id. at ¶ 45. Fasoli avers that his transfer to Scofieldtown Yard “was done, inter alia, to retaliate, intimidate and silence him from speaking out about waste and mismanagement within the City's Office of Operations and to move him away from the situs [sic] of the questionable practices he had theretofore observed [at Vehicle Maintenance].” Id. at ¶ 46. Fasoli nevertheless complains that, although he was offered overtime by his immediate supervisor at the facility, Randy Hunter, Scacco vetoed it. Fasoli maintains Scacco did this in retaliation for “speaking out on matters of public concern.” Id. at ¶ 47.

In February of 2010, Fasoli learned that a position had opened up for a Traffic Violations Officer (TVO) with special police powers, and that the position had been filled on a provisional basis by Tania Barnes's (“Barnes”)⁷ brother, George Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”). Id. at ¶ 85. Fasoli believed that Rodriguez's hiring for that position was the product of “[n]epotism and favoritism[,]” because “the position was supposed to go to a member of his union under the collective bargaining agreement[,]” and “was never made public[.]” Id. at ¶¶ 85–89. Fasoli “reported th[e] matter to [then-Stamford Board of Finance member] [Joseph] Tarzia [ (“Tarzia”) ] and [Board of Representative member Salvatore] Gabriel[e] [ (“Gabriele”) ]....” Id. at ¶ 89. As a result, Tarzia and Gabriele publicly called for an investigation of the Personnel Division and its hiring practices. Id. at ¶ 90; see also id. at ¶¶ 100, 102.

Shortly thereafter on April 8, 2010, Fasoli informed Gabriele “that City employees were throwing out City snowplows and selling City scrap metal.... to pay for private employee parties, and that this was done [in violation of City ordinances and] with the knowledge and consent of ... [Orgera].” Id. at ¶¶ 49–50, 54. Fasoli submits that he “had previously reported” the same activity to Tarzia and Gabriele, but does not specify when he made those reports. See id. at ¶ 50. According to Fasoli, his “reporting of the mismanagement, misuse and theft of City assets within the Office of Operations was a political embarrassment to [ ] Orgera ... and to [the Mayor of Stamford,] who appointed [Orgera to be Director of Operations].” Id. at ¶ 66. He states that, “[a]s a result of the inquiries generated by [his] whistle-blowing ... the [Stamford] Board of Finance voted in May of 2010 to hire an outside auditor to conduct a forensic audit of the Operations Department with respect to the sale of City metals (the “Metals Audit”).” Id. at ¶ 67. Fasoli also asserts that “[t]he Metals Audit generated significant public notoriety[,]” and states that “[i]t was rumored among City employees that [Fasoli had been the one to] provide [ ] the information to [Tarzia and Gabriele] that [led] to the Audit.” Id. at ¶ 68. As a result of these rumors Fasoli claims that, starting in April 2010 and continuing through October 2010, he became the subject of disparaging remarks by City employees, including over the Department's two-way vehicle radio system, calling him a “whistleblower” and a “rat.” Id.

In mid-May 2010, Fasoli attended a Board of Representatives Operations Committee Meeting, which was also attended by Scacco. Id. at ¶ 38. At the meeting, Fasoli spoke out against the Department's purchase of certain 1996 used Mack trucks, claiming they were unsafe and in poor mechanical condition, questioning the vehicles' bills of sales, and the accuracy of documents submitted to the Operations Committee. Id. at ¶ 39. According to Fasoli, in retaliation for his speech, “Scacco presented figures [at the same meeting] that purported to show that [Fasoli]'s work as an equipment mechanic cost the Department more than any other employee.” Id. at ¶ 40. In support of this accusation, Fasoli says that Scacco “fraudulently inflat[ed]...