Roche v. Town of Wareham

• Decision Date: 29 October 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97cv10429-ZRK.,97cv10429-ZRK.
• Parties: Kelleyanne ROCHE, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF WAREHAM and Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

24 F.Supp.2d 146

Kelleyanne ROCHE, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF WAREHAM and Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Defendants.

No. 97cv10429-ZRK.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

October 29, 1998.

James R. McMahon, III, Law Offices of James R. McMahon, Buzzards Bay, MA, for Kelleyanne M. Roche, Plaintiff.

John J. Kenney, Jr., Everett J. Marder, Susan Callahan, Kopelman & Paige, P.C., Boston, MA, for Town of Wareham, Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET NO. 22)

KAROL, United States Magistrate Judge.

After her hometown denied her application for employment with its summer police force, Plaintiff, the daughter of a Cape Cod town selectman, brought this two-count action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("section 1983") and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act, G.L. ch. 151B § 4 ("chapter 151B"). She alleges unlawful discrimination on the basis of her ancestry and her gender resulting from the town's application to her of an unwritten policy against nepotism in the selection of its summer police force. Because Plaintiff has made no showing that the town's policy is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest, or that it is otherwise a pretext for unconstitutional discrimination, her claim under section 1983 must fail. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment, as to Count II of Plaintiff's complaint, is ALLOWED.

Having dismissed the only claim that anchors federal jurisdiction in this case, the court exercises its discretion to step back from what is now exclusively a state law dispute. Count I of Plaintiff's complaint is therefore REMANDED to the Essex Superior Court.

Background¹

On November 29, 1993, Defendant Town of Wareham ("the town") posted a Notice of Vacancy for the positions of Seasonal Police Officer ("SPO"). The town employs SPOs to accommodate the increased population, traffic and emergencies that it experiences primarily during the summer months.

Kelleyanne Roche ("Plaintiff") applied in writing for one of the SPO positions at some point prior to the December 13 application deadline. She held an Associate's Degree in Criminal Justice and had also worked with the Manchester, New Hampshire police department during her time in college.

The town received 62 applications for the SPO positions. Fifty-four of these were from men and eight were from women (including Plaintiff). In a preliminary screen, the Police Chief, Thomas Joyce, removed six applications from consideration. These applicants were sons and daughters of certain town officials. After further discussions with Defendant Joseph F. Murphy, Jr. ("Murphy"), the town's administrator and appointing authority, Joyce permanently removed these six applications from consideration for the SPO positions. The six included applications from the two sons of the town's Personnel Administrator, the son of the town's Purchasing Administrator, the son of a permanent town police officer, the son of a selectwoman, and Plaintiff, the daughter of a selectman.

After further winnowing through background and residency checks, the town (through Murphy) appointed 18 applicants as SPOs. Sixteen of the appointed SPOs were men and two were women. On March 14, 1994, the town informed Plaintiff by mail that she had not been selected for one of the SPO positions. Plaintiff, however, did not receive this notice because it was addressed incorrectly.

In May 1994, Plaintiff met with Police Chief Joyce, who told her that despite her qualifications, the appointing authority, Murphy, had refused to consider her application. When Plaintiff later spoke with Murphy, he told her that he was not going to appoint her because her father, Kenneth Roche, was a member of the town's Board of Selectmen. According to Plaintiff, Murphy informed her that the town had an unwritten policy of not hiring relatives of present town employees. At that meeting, Murphy gave Plaintiff a copy of the March 14 letter denying her application.

Prior Proceedings

In September 1994, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging that the town's police department had unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and her ancestry. The MCAD investigated Plaintiff's complaint and, on February 6, 1995, issued a finding of Lack of Probable Cause, having determined that there existed no evidence to conclude that the nondiscriminatory reasons offered by the town to support its decision were pretextual. Plaintiff appealed this finding, which was upheld by the MCAD in June 1995.

Plaintiff filed suit in Essex Superior Court on September 18, 1996. Her complaint alleged violations of chapter 151B and section 1983 due to Defendants' discrimination in hiring on the basis of ancestry and gender. Defendants removed the matter to this court on February 27, 1997, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Thereafter, the parties consented to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting any and all further proceedings in the case, including trial and entry of a final judgment. (Docket No. 13).

The case is before this court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 22). Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A fact is material if it carries with it the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law. One National Bank v. Antonellis, 80 F.3d 606, 608 (1st Cir.1996). All reasonable inferences must be indulged in favor of the nonmoving party when assessing whether disputed issues of fact are sufficient to block summary judgment. Oliver v. Digital Equipment Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir.1988).

Discussion

In bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege a deprivation, under color of state law, of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.² Her complaint sets forth two such deprivations: employment discrimination on the basis of her gender and employment discrimination on the basis of her ancestry, both in violation of chapter 151B. Allegations that Defendants have violated state law alone, however, will not state a claim under section 1983. Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980). To proceed under section 1983, Plaintiff must identify federal rights that Defendants have denied her. See id.; 42 U.S.C. § 1983.³

Gender discrimination not substantially related to important governmental objectives violates the equal protection dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment and would, if established here, state a claim under section 1983. See Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 234-35, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979); Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881 (1st Cir.1988).⁴ In order to prove discriminatory treatment, a plaintiff must prove purposeful discrimination. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-41, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). Where direct evidence of discriminatory intent is lacking — as it usually is in cases of discrimination — the First Circuit has recognized that the analytical framework for proving discriminatory intent, whether under the Constitution or other federal statutes, is set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881, 896 (1st Cir.1988); White v. Vathally, 732 F.2d 1037, 1039 (1st Cir.1984); T & S Service Assocs. v. Crenson, 666 F.2d 722, 724 n. 2 (1st Cir.1981); see also Jones v. Clinton, 990 F.Supp. 657 (E.D.Ark.1998) (Section 1983 sexual harassment claim analyzed under Title VII principles); Lipsett, 864 F.2d at 896-97 (Title IX discrimination claim). Accordingly, the court lays out below the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis. 411 U.S. at 802-805, 93 S.Ct. 1817.

To establish a prima facie case for discriminatory failure to hire, a plaintiff must first demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) she is a member of a class protected by the Constitution or federal laws; (2) she applied for and was qualified for the position in question; (3) despite her qualifications, she was rejected, and (4) after her rejection, the positions remained open and the employer continued to accept applicants of her qualifications. Woods v. Friction Materials, Inc., 30 F.3d 255, 259-60 (1st Cir. 1994). The Supreme Court has described this threshold as a comparatively easy one to meet. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (burden "not onerous").

If the plaintiff succeeds in making a prima facie showing, the burden of production then shifts to the employer to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision, supported by credible evidence. To meet that burden, the defendant need only produce an explanation, and thus "need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons." Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089; see Alvarez-Fonseca v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling Co., 152 F.3d 17 (1st Cir.1998).

If the employer articulates a nondiscriminatory reason, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to establish that the reason articulated by the employer is not the real reason, but is in fact a pretext. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817.

This does not end the inquiry under federal law, however. A federal discrimination plaintiff who proves pretext is not automatically entitled to judgment. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 510, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). A showing of pretext only "permit[s] the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact...