Murray v. Town of Stratford
| Decision Date | 11 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:11 CV 629(JGM).,3:11 CV 629(JGM). |
| Citation | 996 F.Supp.2d 90 |
| Parties | Ellen MURRAY v. TOWN OF STRATFORD, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Elisabeth Ann Seieroe Maurer, Maurer & Associates, Ridgefield, CT, for Ellen Murray.
Christopher G. Ciancanelli, Jackson Law Group, Garrett A. Denniston, James A. Cresswell, Bishop, Jackson & Kelly, LLC, Milford, CT, for Town of Stratford, et al.
RULING ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO STRIKE
On April 20, 2011, plaintiff Ellen Murray, a now-retired Assistant Fire Chief in the Stratford Fire Department, commenced this gender discrimination action against defendants Town of Stratford [“defendant Town” or Town of Stratford], and James Miron, individually and in his official capacity as the Mayor of the Town of Stratford. (Dkt. # 1). On September 19, 2011, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 29), in which she alleges that the defendant Town discriminated against her because of her gender, in their refusal to promote her, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46a–60(a)(1)(Counts One & Three); the defendant Town has discriminated against her based on gender plus race in violation of Title VII (Count Two); the defendant Town has taken affirmative disciplinary actions in violation of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–51q in punishing plaintiff for the exercise of her right to free speech and free association under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or by exercising her rights under Sections 3, 4, or 14 of Article first of the Connecticut Constitution (Count Four); defendant Miron has retaliated against plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for her exercise of right of association pursuant to the First Amendment (Counts Five & Six); and defendant Miron deprived her equal protection, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, through his illegal conduct, in his official and individual capacities (Counts Seven & Eight).
On August 29, 2011, the defendant Town filed its First Motion to Dismiss Count Four of Plaintiff's Complaint. (Dkt. # 30; see Dkts. 21, 24–27, 31–32). On February 8, 2012, the parties consented to trial before this Magistrate Judge and the case was transferred from U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton to this Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. # 37). On May 3, 2012, this Magistrate Judge filed a Ruling on Defendant Town of Stratford's Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Cause of Action, granting defendant Town's Motion on grounds that plaintiff failed to allege that she was subjected to “discipline” within the meaning of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–51q. (Dkt. # 51). Thereafter, on July 10, 2012, defendants filed their Answers and Affirmative Defense. (Dkts. 56–57).
On June 21, 2013, the defendant Town filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, with brief and exhibits in support (Dkt. # 75),1 and defendant Town's Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement [“Defendants' 56(a)1 Stmt”]. (Dkt. # 76). 2 The same day, defendant Miron filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, with brief and exhibits in support (Dkt. # 77),3 and defendant Miron's Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement. (Dkt. # 78).4 Also, on that same day, plaintiff filed her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, with brief, Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement [“Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt”], and exhibits in support. (Dkt. # 79).5
On August 22, 2013, defendants filed their joint brief in opposition to plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. # 83),6 and Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement [“Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt”]. (Dkt. # 84). On the same day, plaintiff filed her brief in opposition to defendant Miron's Motion for Summary Judgment with exhibits and Plaintiff's Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement in Response to Defendant Miron's Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement [“Plaintiff's 56(a)2 Stmt”] (Dkt. # 88),7 as well as her brief in opposition to defendant Town's Motion for Summary Judgment and plaintiff's Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement in Response to Defendant Town's Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement. (Dkt. # 89). 8
On that same day, plaintiff also filed her Motion to Strike four exhibits attached to defendant Miron's Motion, with brief in support (Dkt. # 86), and her Motion to Strike four exhibits attached to the defendant Town's motion, with brief in support (Dkt. # 87) on grounds that these exhibits are not in admissible form. On September 19, 2013, plaintiff filed her Motion to Strike defendants' brief in opposition to plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on grounds that four exhibits were filed in inadmissible form. (Dkt. # 97).
Also on September 19, 2013, plaintiff filed her reply brief in further support of her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 98).9 On the same day, defendants filed their response to plaintiff's Motions to Strike and affidavit in support (Dkts. # 99–100),10 and defendants filed a joint reply brief in further support of their Motions for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 101).
For the reasons stated below, defendant Town of Stratford's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 75) is granted in part and denied in part; defendant Miron's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 77) is granted in part and denied in part; plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 79) is denied; and plaintiff's Motions to Strike (Dkts. 86, 87, 97) are denied.
Plaintiff was employed by the Town of Stratford in the Stratford Fire Department [“SFD”] for twenty-seven years and nine months from 1982 to 2010, and she was one of four Assistant Fire Chiefs from January 2007 to 2010. (Plaintiff's Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement ¶¶ 1, 4; Defendants' Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement ¶¶ 1, 4; Defendants' 56(a)1 Stmt ¶¶ 1, 3; Plaintiff's 56(a)2 Stmt ¶¶ 1, 4; Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 5–6, 11–12, 15, 25, 34). The position of assistant chief is below only those of fire chief and deputy fire chief. (Defendant Town's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 2; Defendant Miron's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 2; Plaintiff's 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 2). Plaintiff is a white female. (Undisputed Facts ¶ 10). Defendant Miron was the Mayor of Stratford from December 2005 to December 2009. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 2; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 2; Undisputed Facts ¶ 7).
Plaintiff was a member of the firefighter's union, Local 998, from 1982 until she was promoted to Assistant Chief in January 2007. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 5; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 5; Miron's Resp. 10/5/12 ¶ 6; Town's Resp. 10/5/12 ¶ 6). Plaintiff's husband, Thomas Murray, was an Assistant Chief in the SFD and was an active participant in the union, serving on numerous boards and committees. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 6; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 6; Undisputed Facts, ¶ 10; Miron's Resp. 10/5/12 ¶¶ 10–16, 50–52; Town's Resp. 10/5/12 ¶¶ 10–16, 50–52). In his work with the firefighter's union, Assistant Chief Thomas Murray was particularly involved in matters related to municipal pensions, and he was regarded as the “go-to” person for firefighters with department issues, union issues, and legal issues. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 7; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 7; Cavanaugh Depo. at 107–08). His active involvement in the firefighter's union and advocacy for members of the SFD resulted in him not being well-liked within Stratford Town Hall. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 8; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 8; Cavanaugh Depo. at 110). Plaintiff was as enthusiastic, interested, and dedicated to the firefighter's union as her husband. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 9; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 9; Cavanaugh Depo. at 108). The Assistant Chiefs of the SFD rejoined the firefighter's union in September 2008 after extensive, contentious negotiations with the Town. (Plaintiff's56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 10; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 10; Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 16–17; Cavanaugh Depo. at 106; Miron Depo. at 109). During these negotiations, defendant Miron had discussions with several Assistant Chiefs, including Assistant Chief Thomas Murray, who were supportive of the Assistant Chiefs rejoining the union. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 13; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 13; Miron Depo. at 196). Plaintiff rejoined the firefighter's union in 2008 and continued to be a union member until she left the SFD. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 14; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 14; Miron's Resp. 10/5/12 ¶ 7; Town's Resp. 10/5/12 ¶ 7).
James Cavanaugh [“Chief Cavanaugh”] was Fire Chief from June 2009 to January 2013. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 3; P; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 3; Undisputed Facts ¶ 19). When Chief Cavanaugh interviewed for the position of Interim Fire Chief, defendant Miron told Cavanaugh that cost containment was needed in the SFD. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 16; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 16; Cavanaugh Depo. at 41). The first opportunity to cut costs associated with the SFD occurred when the firefighter's collective bargaining agreement came up for negotiation, at which time the Town focused exclusively on the salary and benefits of the firefighters, and was not willing to consider reducing costs by other means. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 17; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 17; Cavanaugh Depo. at 42–43). According to Chief Cavanaugh, the SFD had a “tremendous” union contract and the Town was going to “attack” the firefighter's union in the negotiation process. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 18; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 18; Cavanaugh Depo. at 38).
When defendant Miron decided to run for Mayor, he sought to address several issues affecting the Town, including the reduction of Town costs, which defendant Miron identified as a major issue. (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 19; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 19; Miron Depo. at 51, 55). Defendant Miron admitted that he took all factors into consideration when hiring someone, that he did not look at matters in a vacuum when making employment decisions, and that he looked at “how the real world affects decisions.” (Plaintiff's 56(a)1 Stmt ¶ 20; Defendants' 56(a)2 Stmt ¶ 20; Miron Depo. at 87). During his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercer v. Dora B. Schriro, Comm'r of the Dep't of Emergency Servs. & Pub. Prot., the Conn. State Police Union, Inc.
...their support of labor union activities as a component of the First Amendment's right to free association." Murray v. Town of Stratford , 996 F.Supp.2d 90, 117 (D. Conn. 2014). See also Wrobel v. Cnty. of Erie , 211 F. App'x 71, 72 (2d Cir. 2007) ("Government employees who are not policymak......
-
Milardo v. Town of Westbrook
...lapse of nine years is far too long to support the inference that the two events were causally related. E.g., Murray v. Town of Stratford, 996 F.Supp.2d 90, 122 (D.Conn.2014) (temporal proximity was too tenuous to find causation where nine years separated plaintiff's prior lawsuit and defen......
-
Ramsaran v. Booz & Co., 1:14-cv-708-GHW
...have accepted personnel files and employee review documents as business records under Rule 803(6). See, e.g., Murray v. Town of Stratford, 996 F. Supp. 2d 90, 105 (D. Conn. 2014) (accepting under 803(6) personnel records authenticated by defendants' Human Resources Director); Krys v. Ysrael......
-
Murray v. Miron, 3:11 CV 629 (JGM)
...and denied in part, and plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was denied ["February 2014 Ruling"]. Murray v. Town of Stratford, 996 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D. Conn. 2014). Jury selection and a jury trial were scheduled for August 11, 2014 (see Dkt. #114), and on July 25, 2014, this Magist......