Looney v. Town of Marlborough
| Decision Date | 30 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-cv-1068 (VLB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | PATRICK LOONEY, Looney, v. TOWN OF MARLBOROUGH ET AL., Defendants. |
The plaintiff, Patrick Looney ("Looney") brings this action for damages against the Town of Marlborough (the "Town"), First Selectman of the Town, William Black ("Black"), in his official and individual capacities, Second Selectman of the Town, Joseph A. La Bella ("La Bella"), in his official and individual capacities, and Third Selectman of the Town, Riva R. Clark ("Clark"), in his official and individual capacities (collectively, the "Defendants").
Looney alleges a claim for breach of contract (Count One) and violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 31-51q (Count Three) against the Town. Looney also alleges a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment against Black (Count Two), and a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for violation of his First Amendment rights against Black, La Bella, and Clark (Count Four).
Currently pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts Two and Four of Looney's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure. [Doc. #19]. Also pending is Looney's motion to amend his complaint to add factual allegations clarifying the basis for his claims against La Bella and Clark. [Doc. #28]. For the reasons stated below, Looney's motion to amend is GRANTED, and the Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Looney was employed as a Building Official for the town of Marlborough, a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Connecticut. Second Am. Compl. [Doc. #29-1] ¶¶ 1-2. He was first appointed to the position on August 15, 1994. Id. ¶ 6. Looney accepted the position with pension and benefits in July of 1994 after meeting with the First Selectman of the town of Marlborough. Id. ¶ 8. During the meeting, the First Selectman described the position as a full-time salaried position, whereby Looney would work thirty-six hours per week. Id.
By statute, the Building Official "pass[es] upon any question relative to the mode, manner of construction or materials to be used in the erection or alteration of buildings or structures, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the State Building Code" and Department of Public safety regulations, and "require[s] compliance with the provisions of the State Building Code . . . relating to the construction, alteration, repair, removal, demolition and integral equipment and location, use, accessibility, occupancy and maintenance of buildings and structures, except as may be otherwise provided for." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-261(b). In addition, according to Looney, his responsibilities as a Building Official included "plan[ning], organizing], and implement[ing] a comprehensive building advisory, inspection and enforcement program," "provid[ing]consultation to boards and commissions," "assist[ing] the Sanitarian by performing subsurface septic system inspections on an as needed basis," and "assist[ing] all departments and employees in trouble-shooting computer problems and assisting staff in computer skill development." Second Am. Compl. [Doc. #29-1] ¶ 20. Looney claims that he performed his duties "with distinction" throughout his employment as Building Official. Id. ¶ 21.
In order to align Looney's appointment with the election cycle of the Board of Selectmen, Looney was reappointed to the position of Building Official on November 29, 1995 under the same terms and conditions as his initial appointment. Id. ¶ 9. Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 29-260(a), a Building Official is appointed to a term of four years and until his successor qualifies. Id. ¶ 12. According to section 3.8.1.1 of the Marlborough Town Charter, the First Selectman requires the approval of the Board of Selectmen to discharge or remove all appointed officials or employees of the Town. Id. ¶ 14. Looney was reappointed as a full-time Building Official with pension and benefits on November 23, 1999, in accordance with Section 29-260(a). Id. ¶ 15.
On February 4, 2004, Looney was notified that he had again been reappointed as a full-time Building Official with pension and benefits. Id. ¶ 16. Looney alleges that at this time the Town's First Selectman inappropriately attempted to shorten the term of reappointment for the position, stating that his term would expire on July 31, 2006 rather than November 22, 2007, the end of the four-year cycle. Id. ¶ 16. However, in April 2006, Looney was given notice of hisreappointment as a full-time Building Official with pension and benefits for an additional four years effective August 2006. Id. ¶ 17.
Around October 8, 2009, Looney filed a grievance claiming that his supervisor, Peter Hughes ("Hughes"), Planning and Development Director for the Town, had violated his First Amendment rights by attempting to limit his communication of information to a Town resident regarding the issue of wood-burning boilers/stoves and smoke discharge being public health concerns subject to regulation. Id. ¶ 23. On October 30, 2009, Hughes denied the grievance, stating that "Mr. Looney has been requested to restrict his actions in the office to that of his duties and not to make determinations or engage in discussions of substantive matters outside his job duties concerning other Town agencies or jurisdictions." Id. ¶ 24. On November 25, 2009, Looney addressed a memorandum to First Selectman Black in which he continued to protest the limits on his speech concerning wood-burning stoves. Id. ¶ 25. Specifically, he complained that he was being prevented from "voicing his opinion regarding an outside agency enforcing a cease and desist order against Town residents." Id. Looney's grievance did not proceed beyond the second step, and he hired counsel to communicate with the Town. Id. ¶ 26. Looney's counsel, in turn, communicated to Black through a letter advising the Town that the restriction placed on Looney by Hughes was an illegal prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment. Id. ¶ 26. On December 30, 2009, counsel for the Town stated that the Town would not remove the restrictions on Looney's speech and threatened disciplinary action up through and including discharge. Id. ¶ 27.
On January 4, 2010, counsel for the Town informed AFSCME Council 4, the union for Town employees (the "Union"), that individuals in the Local 1303433 unit would be laid off or have their hours reduced, including the position of Building Official which would be cut to twenty hours per week. Id. ¶ 28. On January 28, 2010, Black sent a letter to Looney confirming that his hours would be cut to twenty per week. Id. ¶ 29. Looney alleges that Black did not obtain the approval of the Board of Selectmen in an official meeting to take this action. Id. U 30. As a result of having his hours cut, Looney was removed from the bargaining unit and lost his pension and benefit entitlements. Id. ¶¶ 31-32.
On April 5, 2010, Looney notified the Town that he intended to bring an action to vindicate his rights. Id. ¶ 34. On June 14, 2010, he filed a lawsuit against the Town and Black in Connecticut Superior Court. Id. U 34. Looney alleges that after he commenced the lawsuit, Black posted a notice to fill the position of Building Official on or before August 1, 2010, which is when Looney's term was set to expire. Id. ¶ 35. Black appointed the Second and Third Selectmen (La Bella and Clark) as members of a "search committee" to interview candidates for that position along with that of Fire Marshall. Id. ¶ 36. Looney claims that the Town had never before engaged in a search and interview process to select a Building Official. Id. ¶ 37. Looney applied for the position and was interviewed, but on July 30, 2010, the Board of Selectmen appointed another candidate. Id. ¶ 38. Looney alleges that La Bella brought up the subject of the lawsuit during his interview. Id. ¶ 39. Looney also alleges that, at a specialmeeting of the Board of Selectman, Clark stated, "Frankly, I have serious issues recommending someone who is suing the Town." Id. ¶ 40.
The Defendants removed Looney's case against the Town and Black to this Court on July 8, 2008. [Doc. #1]. On August 3, 2010, Looney filed an amended complaint as a matter of course adding La Bella and Clark as defendants. [Doc. #12]. The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on September 30, 2010. [Doc. #19]. Looney filed his opposition to the Defendants' motion and his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on November 4, 2010. [Doc. ##27, 28].
"Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a 'short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, Id. (internal quotations omitted). Id. (internal citations omitted).
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court should follow a "two-pronged approach" to evaluate the sufficiency of the complaint. Hayden v Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 161 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial