Ratajack v. Brewster Fire Dep't, Inc. of the Brewster-Southeast Joint Fire Dist.

Decision Date30 March 2016
Docket NumberCase No. 14-CV-7 (KMK)
Citation178 F.Supp.3d 118
Parties William J. Ratajack, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Brewster Fire Department, Inc. of the Brewster-Southeast Joint Fire District, Donald Goodwin, Philip McMurray, Albert Jacobs, Brewster-Southeast Joint Fire District, John Klosowski, Martin Miller, and Steven Miller, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Elisabeth Seieroe Maurer, Esq., The Law Office of Elisabeth Seieroe Maurer P.C., Ridgefield, CT, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Jeffrey Bruce Siler, Esq., Siler & Ingber, Garden City, NY, Counsel for Defendants.

Maria Massucci, Esq., Catalano Gallardo & Petropoulos, LLP, Jericho, NY, Counsel for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

Plaintiff William Ratajack (Plaintiff), a former member of the Brewster Fire Department, Inc. of the Brewster-Southeast Joint Fire District (the Department), brings this action against the Department, Donald Goodwin (Goodwin), Philip McMurray (McMurray), Albert Jacobs (Jacobs), the Brewster-Southeast Joint Fire District (the District), John Klosowski (Klosowski), Martin Miller (Miller), and Steven Miller (Steven) (collectively, Defendants), asserting claims of defamation and violation of his rights to due process and free speech. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on each cause of action, and Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on his procedural due process claim. For the reasons to follow, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his procedural due process claim, and Defendants' Motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation, defamation, and substantive due process claims.

I. Background
A. Facts

The following facts are taken from Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 statement in support of summary judgment, Plaintiff's response, Plaintiff's statement of additional facts creating a material dispute; Plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1 statement in support of his motion for partial summary judgment, Defendants' response, Defendants' counter statement of facts, and other documents in the record. The facts as described below are not in dispute, except to the extent indicated.

1. The Department, The District, and Plaintiff's History There

Plaintiff is self-employed as the owner of Southeast Mechanical Corp., a company in the business of installing commercial heating and plumbing systems. (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts (“Defs.' 56.1”) ¶¶ 1–2 (Dkt. No. 40); Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Local Rule 56.1 Statement (“Pl.'s 56.1”) ¶¶ 1–2 (Dkt. No. 48).) In 1999, Plaintiff became a member of the Department, and, after a probationary period, was made Lieutenant and was then promoted by the Fire Chief to Captain. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 3–4; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 3–4; Att'y Decl. (“Massucci Decl.”) Ex. C (“Pl.'s Dep. Tr.”) 16–18 (Dkt. No. 38).) Additionally, Plaintiff was elected by the members of the Department to Second Assistant Chief and, in 2012, to First Assistant Chief. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 4; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 4; Pl.'s Dep. Tr. 16–18.) Plaintiff had earlier served as captain. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 13; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 13.) He resigned that position, however, over concerns relating to how the Fire Department was being managed, including that certain members were not attending calls, such as members Michael Miller (Michael), Steven, and Paul DeBartolomeo (“DeBartolomeo”). (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 12–13; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 12–13.) Michael and Steven are brothers, and their father, Miller, is also a member of the Department. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 8; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 8; Massucci Decl. Ex. H (“Miller Dep. Tr.”) 13–14.) All three are Caucasian, but Miller also has two mixed-race, African-American children. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 9–10; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 9–10; Miller Dep. Tr. 14.) Arguably consistent with Plaintiff's concerns over Steven's, Michael's, and others' responsiveness, the Department or the District in 2013 hired paid EMS workers to cover daytime calls during the week due to concerns over an insufficient number of Fire Department members choosing to respond to calls. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 17; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 17.)1

This case involves two distinct but related entities: the District and the Department. The District was and is a political subdivision of the State of New York. (Pl.'s FRCP 56.1 Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute (“Pl.'s Cross 56.1”) ¶ 14 (Dkt. No. 53); Resp. to Pl.'s FRCP 56.1 Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute and Counter Statement of Facts (“Defs.' Cross 56.1”) ¶ 14 (Dkt. No. 56).) Formed under New York state law and required to operate in compliance with such law, the District has the authority to tax, organize, and operate fire companies within the District. (Pl.'s Cross 56.1 ¶¶ 15–16; Defs.' Cross. 56.1 ¶¶ 15–16.) The Department is one such fire company. The Commissioner of the District serves a term of five years, and Klosowski is currently in his fourth term and sixteenth year as Commissioner. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 81; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 81; Massucci Decl. Ex. J (“Klosowski Aff.”) ¶ 2.) In contrast, the Fire Department has a chief, first assistant chief, and a second assistant chief, who are elected by the membership and can serve two terms of one year each. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 73–74; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 73–74.) The chief of the Department appoints lieutenants, with advice from the assistant chiefs. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 95; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 95.) In 2013, Bill Rieg (“Rieg”) was elected chief, and was a member of the Department Board of Directors (the Board of Directors) at the same time. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 75; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 75; Pl.'s Cross 56.1 ¶ 5; Defs.' Cross 56.1 ¶ 5.) Additionally, sometime around mid-July to mid-August 2013, Goodwin, the Vice President of the Board of Directors, served as the acting president of the Board of Directors. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 90–91; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 90–91; Pl.'s Cross 56.1 ¶¶ 6–7; Defs.' Cross 56.1 ¶¶ 6–7.) Jacobs—who would vote to expel Plaintiff from the Department—was another member, as was McMurray, who has been with the Department for 25 years. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 94; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 94; Pl.'s Cross 56.1 ¶¶ 8–9; Defs.' Cross 56.1 ¶¶ 8–9.)

The Department is governed in part by a set of bylaws approved by the Board of Fire Commissioners (the Board of Commissioners). (See Massucci Decl. Ex. L (“Bylaws”); see also Pl.'s Cross 56.1 ¶ 17; Defs.' Cross 56.1 ¶ 17.) The bylaws provide how membership in the Department may end, including for cause, and require that any member be notified of the charges brought against him or her. (See Pl.'s Cross 56.1 ¶¶ 18–21, 58–59; Defs.' Cross 56.1 ¶¶ 18–21, 58–59.) Article 12 of those Bylaws, in part, reads:

Section 1
The Board of Directors may remove a member from the rolls of the department, upon due notice via a registered letter from the recording secretary, for the following reasons:
***
d) For conduct unbecoming an officer, firefighter, or detrimental to the best interests of the department
***
Section 2
Any member may be expelled from the department or penalized for misconduct as determined by the Board of Directors. Upon written request, such member will be entitled to a hearing, whereupon arguments and evidence may be presented in his/her defense. Upon receipt of his/her written request[,] he/she is entitled to be furnished with a written copy of the charges against him. He/she shall receive those written charges at least one week prior to the regular or special meeting before which his case is to be heard. All expulsions and removals, except as provided for by state law, shall be by a majority vote made by ballot by the Board of Directors.

(Bylaws Art. 12.)

2. The July Incident

On July 11, 2013, when he was First Assistant Chief, Plaintiff marched in the Mahopac parade dressed in uniform. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 19–20; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 19–20; Defs.' Counter Statement of Facts (“Defs.' Counter Cross”) 56.1 ¶¶ 2–3 (Dkt. No. 56); Massucci Decl. Ex. M (Aug. 15 Letter”).)2 Plaintiff had George Hill (“Hill”), another member of the Fire Department, drive him to the parade, and Plaintiff drank beer before, during, and after the parade at the firehouse. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 21–22; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 21–22; Pl.'s Dep. Tr. 97.) That evening, after returning from the parade, while at the firehouse, Plaintiff claims to have seen some members who did not participate in the parade in a vehicle in the parking lot. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 23; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 23; see also Defs.' Counter Cross 56.1 ¶ 5.) Plaintiff recognized Steven in the passenger seat of the vehicle, which Plaintiff believed belonged to DeBartolomeo. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 24–25; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 24–25; see also Defs.' Counter Cross 56.1 ¶¶ 5–6.) After seeing these non-participating members, Plaintiff testified that he spoke with Hill, Robert Burns, and Dave O'Hara (“O'Hara”). (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 26; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 26.) In so doing, according to Plaintiff, he referred to the non-participating members, including some of the people in the car, as “a piece of shit” and “a bunch of niggers,” and further used some “generic curse words,” (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 27–28), although Defendants claim that Plaintiff used these words to refer to Steven, (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 27–28), or the Millers more generally, (see Defs.' Counter Cross 56.1 ¶ 8).

According to Defendants, Plaintiff then proceeded downstairs with McMurray, and continued the angry exchange with McMurray on the front steps of the firehouse, (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 29 (citing Pl.'s Dep. Tr. 107–08; Massucci Decl. Ex. I (Aug. 14 Meeting Tr.”) 88–91)), which Plaintiff disputes, (see Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 29 (citing Pl.'s Dep. Tr. 107–08; 114)).3 While on the front steps of the firehouse, Plaintiff testified that he spoke in a “passionate” manner with a “raised” voice and was “angry” and “animated.” (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 30; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 30.) The Parties dispute, however, whether Plaintiff continued to use the word “nigger” while outside the firehouse. (Compare Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 32 (“Mr. Ratajack continued to curse and use racial slurs including the word ‘nigger’ while speaking in a raised, passionate, animated[,] and angry voice while...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC v. Bleeping Computer LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 8 Julio 2016
    ...gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties." Ratajack v. Brewster Fire Dep't, Inc. , No. 14 Civ. 7, 178 F.Supp.3d 118, 160, 2016 WL 1274581, at *27 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) (quoting Chapadeau v. Utica Observer – Dispatch, Inc. , 38 N.Y.2d 196, 199, 379 N.Y.S.2d 6......
  • Sheindlin v. Brady
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 7 Abril 2022
    ...and, no matter how offensive, cannot be the subject of an action for defamation." Ratajack v. Brewster Fire Dep't, Inc. of the Brewster-Se. Joint Fire Dist. , 178 F. Supp. 3d 118, 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted and alteration adopted) (quoting Davis v. Boeheim , 24 N.......
  • Obi v. Amoa
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 21 Agosto 2017
    ...cannot rely upon mere conclusory allegations or charges based upon suspicion, surmise and conjecture. Ratajack v. Brewster Fire Dep't Inc., 178 F.Supp.3d 118, 162 (S.D.N.Y.2016) ; Donofrio–Ferrezza, supra, 2005 WL 2312477, at *7–8, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21103, at *21 citing to Shapiro v. He......
  • Cherry v., 15-CV-6949 (MKB)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 29 Septiembre 2017
    ...notion of substantive due process." Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 94 (2d Cir. 2005); Ratajack v. Brewster Fire Dep't, Inc. of the Brewster-Se. Joint Fire Dist., 178 F. Supp. 3d 118, 147 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (granting summary judgment as to a substantive due process claim where the basis for the cl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT