Naviglia v. Borough of Springdale, Civil Action No. 15-1029
| Decision Date | 16 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 15-1029 |
| Parties | JOSEPH T. NAVIGLIA, Plaintiff, v. THE BOROUGH OF SPRINGDALE, JASON FRY, JOHN MOLNAR, FRANK FORBES, GENE POLSENELLI, MIKE ZIENCIK, KENNETH LLOYD, and JULIO F. MEDEIROS, III, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Plaintiff Joseph T. Naviglia ("Plaintiff") initiated this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting claims for First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process, as well as claim for conspiracy under § 1985(3),2 against the following Defendants: the Borough of Springdale ("Borough"); several of the Borough's Councilmen: Jason Fry, John Molnar, Frank Forbes, Gene Polsenelli, Mike Ziencik (collectively "Councilmen"); the Borough's Mayor Kenneth Lloyd; and the Borough's former Chief of Police Julio F. Medeiros, III. All of these Defendants have jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in itsentirety. The motion has been fully briefed by the parties and is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, this motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff began his career in law enforcement as a police officer in 1986 with the Borough. Ten years later, in 1996, he became the Borough's Chief of Police. In July of 2012, Plaintiff was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury regarding the actions of one of his subordinate police officers, Sergeant Mark E. Thom, Jr. ("Thom"). Thom was accused of engaging in excessive force during an arrest when he used his stun gun upon a handcuffed suspect in his patrol car. Plaintiff consulted with the FBI about its investigation and then advised the Councilmen that he was going to testify against Thom. The general response of the Councilmen was disapproval. According to the amended complaint, the Councilmen decided not to investigate or suspend Thom notwithstanding their knowledge of the allegations against Thom and their knowledge that Thom was the subject of a grand jury investigation.
Plaintiff testified against Thom before the federal grand jury on July 25, 2012. He avers that his testimony was in the "public interest." In August 2012, Plaintiff complied with a grand jury subpoena to provide documents relating to Thom and the Borough. During this time period in which the documents were being produced, the Councilmen held a meeting with Plaintiff wherein they cautioned him to support Thom while responding to the grand jury investigation. Plaintiff rebuffed this caution and informed them that he would only respond accurately and truthfully in the matter.
Thom continued working as an active sergeant under Plaintiff during the pendency of the grand jury investigation. Thom was indicted by the grand jury for criminal charges involvingcivil rights violations in February 2013. After Thom was indicted, the Councilmen "finally" placed Thom on administrative leave. Thom pled guilty to the civil rights violation in March 2013.
In April 2013, Plaintiff also began working for East Deer Township as a part-time police officer. He retired as the Borough's Chief of Police on May 31, 2013 with the understanding with Council that he would remain an active part-time police officer for the Borough.
In June 2013, while Thom was awaiting sentencing, the Borough provided Thom with a new job with the Borough road crew, which Plaintiff opposed. Plaintiff demonstrated his opposition by distributing flyers against Thom's new position. Certain Defendant Councilmen - Fry, Molnar, and Ziencik - verbally disciplined Plaintiff for distributing the flyers. The amended complaint alleges that a citizen, Paul Powell, had also applied for that road crew position. Powell objected that the road crew position was given to a felon and alleged that Thom received the job due to favoritism. The amended complaint asserts that in the past, Thom would have been disqualified from being hired for this position due to his criminal record. More than four months later, on October 30, 2013, Defendant Medeiros became the Borough's Chief of Police.
Thom was sentenced by the Honorable Mark R. Hornak of this Court on January 16, 2014. During Thom's sentencing, Judge Hornak read a letter written by Plaintiff. The letter "brought to light Defendant Springdale Councilmen covering for Thom and retaliating against [Plaintiff] for his prior cooperation with the FBI." That same day, the Pittsburgh local news station WTAE televised Plaintiff's verbal complaints about Thom and the Borough. Judge Hornak sentenced Thom to one year and one day in jail, and told Thom that he would "never wear a badge again."
Also in January 2014, Defendant Lloyd became the Mayor of the Borough. Thecomplaint avers that while the Mayor and the Chief of Police directly supervise the police department, they are under the control of the Councilmen Defendants. Plaintiff contends that as a result of testifying against Thom and publicly objecting to his employment in the road crew, Plaintiff's hours and wages were greatly reduced as a part-time police officer. On March 13, 2014, Mayor Lloyd called Plaintiff to work the following day, which turned out to be the last day that Plaintiff would work as a part-time officer for the Borough, notwithstanding that the Mayor had previously promised Plaintiff that regular summer work would be available. That same day, Councilman Ziencik, who is also alleged to be the Head Chair of Public Safety, publicly criticized Plaintiff's loyalty to the Borough during a public meeting. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have removed him from the schedule altogether because of Plaintiff's actions in speaking out against Thom.
In June 2014, Medeiros publicly accused Plaintiff of mishandling the evidence room via an article that was published in the Valley News Dispatch. Plaintiff publicly responded to this accusation.
On February 13, 2015, Medeiros met with Plaintiff and was aggressive during the meeting. Medeiros told Plaintiff that he was upset with Plaintiff appearing at a public session of Borough Council wherein Plaintiff supported his brother, who was the Springdale Township Chief of Police, as a canine officer. Medeiros wanted to replace Plaintiff's brother with a different canine officer. On March 1, 2015, Medeiros e-mailed Plaintiff and inquired as to whether Plaintiff wanted to remain certified for part-time police officer employment with the Borough and whether Medeiros should apply for Plaintiff's Municipal Police Training ("MPT") card. Plaintiff advised Medeiros that he wanted to remain an officer, wanted work, and then provided Medeiros with all the required information to remain an active part-time police officer.
Although the Borough had previously committed to pay for and endorse two classes for eight hours each for Plaintiff, Medeiros sent a text message to Plaintiff stating that Council President, Defendant Fry, put his updates on hold while he sought a legal opinion from the Borough's Solicitor. Plaintiff talked to the Solicitor on June 23, 2015 and was advised that Medeiros told the Solicitor that Plaintiff was no longer a Borough police officer and that MPT cards were already issued.
On July 1, 2015, Plaintiff appeared at a hearing before the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Medeiros was present to oppose Valentines Bar and Grille. Plaintiff testified in favor of Valentines Bar and Grille and against Medeiros. On July 27, 2015, Plaintiff discovered that Medeiros provided Plaintiff's badge number to another officer, and Plaintiff was permanently removed from the schedule and terminated.
The complaint alleges that in the summer of 2015, Plaintiff complained multiple times to Mayor Lloyd and requested his MPT card, reinstatement, and/or a hearing pursuant to Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) and/or the applicable collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). Mayor Lloyd told Plaintiff that he was retired and that he would not be put back on the schedule or receive a hearing of any kind. Plaintiff made similar complaints during the summer of 2015 to the Borough Solicitor and Defendant Councilman Forbes (who is also alleged to be head of personnel), however, never received any response. The amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff was never disciplined; never given a pre-termination hearing; never received any notice of the reasons he was removed from the schedule; and never had a chance to respond before said adverse action was taken, notwithstanding the CBA requires "just cause" for a termination.
Medeiros was terminated by the Borough as Chief of Police in August 2015 for failing tofollow call-off procedure and take a physical and psychological examination. However, in contrast to Plaintiff's termination, Medeiros was given a pre-termination hearing before he was fired.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribe a notice pleading standard in which a plaintiff must come forward with "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). To satisfy this standard, the well-pleaded factual content in the complaint must allow "the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and also "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
To withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the plaintiff need only allege sufficient facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will uncover proof of the claims. Connelly v. Lane Cont. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 789 (3d Cir. 2016). When analyzing a motion to dismiss, it is appropriate to separate the factual and legal elements of the claim. Fowler v. UPMC...
To continue reading
Request your trial