Montaquila v. St. Cyr

• Decision Date: 04 August 1981
• Docket Number: No. 78-373-A,78-373-A
• Citation: 433 A.2d 206
• Parties: Arnold N. MONTAQUILA et al. v. Albert ST. CYR et al. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 206

433 A.2d 206

Arnold N. MONTAQUILA et al. v. Albert ST. CYR et al.

No. 78-373-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Aug. 4, 1981.

Edward John Mulligan, Warwick, for plaintiffs.

Frank J. Williams, Martin W. Aisenberg, Providence, for defendants.

OPINION

SHEA, Justice.

The plaintiffs in this case, Arnold N. Montaquila, K. George Joovelegian, Harold A. Joovelegian, and Frederick G. Tobin, were the solicitor and the assistant solicitors, respectively, for the town of Coventry. They had been appointed at a time when the members of the Democratic Party were in control of the town council. Local elections were held in November 1976, the result of which was to place the council under the control of the members of the Republican Party. The new council appointed Albert St. Cyr town manager pursuant to article V of the Coventry Home Rule Charter.

In a letter dated November 22, 1976, Montaquila's appointment as solicitor was terminated effective with the official seating of the new town council that evening. The termination, however, did not take effect until November 23 as Montaquila obtained a restraining order from a trial justice of the Superior Court on November 22, which was subsequently vacated on the following day.

In addition to the Montaquila letter of November 22, St. Cyr also wrote a letter appointing Frank Williams the new town solicitor. This appointment was approved by the town council at a special council meeting held on November 23. Also at this special meeting, the newly appointed Williams terminated assistant solicitors Harold and George Joovelegian, Tobin, and Arthur Capaldi. ¹

The plaintiffs thereafter brought an action in the Superior Court alleging that their dismissals violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; that the dismissals were void under the provisions of the Coventry Home Rule Charter; and that defendants, the members of the town council and the town manager conspired to deprive plaintiffs of their rights in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1974).

In a decision dated December 13, 1976, the trial justice found that plaintiffs were, in fact, dismissed solely for political reasons. Nevertheless, he held that their positions were such that they were subject to an absolute right of discharge. He found that the solicitors were policymakers and, as such, enjoyed no protection from politically motivated dismissals. Consequently, the trial justice denied plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint to this court. Montaquila v. St. Cyr, R.I., 385 A.2d 673 (1978). It was held that since plaintiffs had no notice that a decision on the merits was being consolidated with a decision on the application for a preliminary injunction, a potential for unfairness existed. The plaintiffs therefore were entitled to a full hearing on the merits. This court remanded the case for a hearing on the merits. The plaintiffs, before the Superior Court, agreed to rest on the transcript and exhibits of the previous hearing for a preliminary injunction and on written memoranda. No new evidence was offered. On September 22, 1978, a second justice of the Superior Court dismissed the complaint. He agreed with the decision of the first trial justice, finding that plaintiffs had no protection from politically motivated dismissals under the Constitution or the Home Rule Charter. The plaintiffs once again appealed to this court.

We begin our discussion of the case by stating that we agree with the justices below who found that the dismissals of the solicitor and his assistants were for purely political reasons. The record contains no evidence indicating that plaintiffs were not performing their duties competently. We now turn to plaintiffs' claim of constitutional deprivations.

I

In a 1976 plurality decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the politically motivated firings of non-civil-service governmental employees were unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, the Court found that patronage dismissals violate an individual's freedoms of belief and association and interfere with the free functioning of the electoral process. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 356, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 2681, 49 L.Ed.2d 547, 555 (1976).

The controversy in Elrod involved the firing of employees in the office of the sheriff of Cook County, Illinois. In December 1970, Richard Elrod, a Democrat, replaced the previous Republican sheriff. As had long been the practice in this department when a different political party assumed office, non-civil-service employees were replaced with individuals belonging to the incoming party. In passing on the constitutionality of patronage dismissals, the Court was confronted with a tradition the roots of which were traceable, at the federal level, at least as far back as the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Id. at 353, 96 S.Ct. at 2680, 49 L.Ed.2d at 553-54.

The Court's constitutional analysis centered around the restraint that patronage places on the freedoms of belief and association. The Court reasoned that an employee who is a member of the out-party maintains affiliation with his own party at the risk of losing his job. Further, if the employee is required to provide financial and campaign assistance to the in-party to keep his job, it is tantamount to coerced belief as the employee is being induced to advance the other party's policies to the detriment of his own party's views and to his own beliefs. Id. at 355, 96 S.Ct. at 2681, 49 L.Ed.2d at 554-55.

The second constitutional question concerned the restrictions that political patronage places on the free functioning of the electoral process. "Conditioning public employment on partisan support prevents support of competing political interests. Existing employees are deterred from such support, as well as the multitude seeking jobs." Id. 427 U.S. at 356, 96 S.Ct. at 2681, 49 L.Ed.2d at 555. The result of this practice, according to the Court, is to tip the electoral process in favor of the incumbent party. Basing its decision on the above analysis and relying primarily on Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967) (invalidating New York statutes barring employment to members of "subversive" organizations), and Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972) (prohibiting dismissal of a state-university professor in retaliation for his exercise of free speech), the plurality concluded that patronage dismissals clearly infringe First Amendment interests. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. at 360, 96 S.Ct. at 2683, 49 L.Ed.2d at 558.

Nevertheless, the Court was unwilling to invalidate all patronage dismissals. Noting that First Amendment protections are not absolute the Court found merit in the claim that there is a need for the political loyalty of employees, "not to the end that effectiveness and efficiency be insured, but to the end that representative government not be undercut by tactics obstructing the implementation of policies of the new administration, policies presumably sanctioned by the electorate." Id. at 367, 96 S.Ct. at 2687, 49 L.Ed.2d at 562. As a result, the Court limited its holding to nonpolicymaking employees. These persons usually have only limited responsibility and are not in a position to thwart the goals of the in-party. Id.

The major unsettled area of law on this issue since Elrod has been the scope of its coverage. The plurality was of the opinion that the line ought to be drawn between policymaking and nonpolicymaking employees. Justice Stewart, in a concurring opinion (joined by Justice Blackmun) felt that nonpolicymaking, as well as nonconfidential employees, could not be discharged on the sole ground of their political beliefs.

Next came the case of Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980). The Court held that the continued employment of an assistant public defender could not properly be conditioned on his allegiance to the political party in control of the county government. Here, the Court changed the focus of the inquiry in regard to which employees may be discharged for solely political reasons.

"In sum, the ultimate inquiry is not whether the label 'policymaker' or 'confidential' fits a particular position; rather, the question is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved." Id. at 531, 100 S.Ct. at 1295, 63 L.Ed.2d at 583.

It is clear from Branti that we are left with a very broad standard for determining the proper scope of protection for non-civil-service employees.

The issue before us is whether the positions of town solicitor and assistant town solicitor are those in which political "party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved." The duties of the town solicitor for Coventry are listed in art. VII, § 7.03, of the Home Rule Charter for the Town of Coventry. This section provides as follows:

"The town solicitor shall serve as chief legal advisor to the council and to the town manager.

"The town solicitor shall appear for and protect the rights of the town in all actions, suits, or proceedings, civil or criminal, in law or equity, brought by or against it, or for or against any of its departments, offices, or agencies, including the council, the manager and the school committee.

"The town solicitor shall also perform such other duties, appropriate to his office, as the council and the manager may require.

"The town solicitor shall examine and approve the form of all ordinances and resolutions, of all invitations to bid, contracts, and other legal documents issued by any department, office or agency of the town."

On examination of the duties listed above, we conclude that the ...