Williams v. City of Brockton
| Decision Date | 22 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-10430-JGD |
| Parties | KEN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF BROCKTON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR INDEMNIFICATION
The plaintiff, Ken Williams ("Williams"), is a former officer in the Brockton, Massachusetts Police Department ("BPD"). He has brought this civil rights action against the City of Brockton ("City" or "Brockton"), four present and former officers of the BPD, the Brockton Retirement Board, and five members of the Retirement Board. By his Complaint, Williams has asserted claims against all of the defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, for deprivation of his constitutional rights (Counts I, III and IV), as well as claims against the four individual police officers for violations of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (Count II).
The matter is presently before the court on the "Motion by Defendant Lon Elliot to Have the Court Order Indemnification for Defense Costs, Fees and Expenses" (DocketNo. 15). By his motion, defendant Lon Elliot ("Elliot"), a former officer in the BPD, is seeking an order directing the City to indemnify him in the same manner and to the same extent as it is indemnifying the three remaining police officer defendants, for the legal costs, fees and expenses incurred and to be incurred in connection with Elliot's defense of this action. Elliot, who claims that he is indigent, contends that such relief is warranted under Sections 9 and 13 of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, Mass. Gen. Laws c. 258, §§ 9 and 13, as well as under the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and the Police Supervisors Union, Local 1162. For all the reasons detailed below, this court finds that the City has acted within its discretion in denying Elliot's request for indemnification. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for indemnification is DENIED. However, the denial shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal in the event the City adopts Mass. Gen. Laws c. 258, § 13 providing for mandatory indemnification, and such adoption applies retroactively to Elliot.
The following facts are relevant to the defendant's motion for indemnification.
Williams filed his Complaint in this action on March 6, 2012. Therein, Williams claims that the defendants discriminated against him and violated his constitutional rights during the time when he was employed at the BPD as one of a handful of minority police officers. (See Compl. (Docket No. 1) ¶¶ 16-17). As alleged in the Complaint, the eventsgiving rise to Williams' claims against Elliot took place between November 2007 and October 2008.
Specifically, Williams alleges that on November 20, 2007, an African-American businessman named Jose Semedo ("Semedo") was falsely arrested by several Caucasian members of the BPD, including Elliot, based on the purported existence of a warrant for Semedo's arrest. (Id. ¶¶ 22-24). According to Williams, Elliot made racially offensive remarks and disparaging gestures toward Semedo during the course of the arrest. (Id. ¶ 23). Elliot also refused to acknowledge evidence that Semedo produced to the officers showing that the warrant had been recalled and that Semedo was not subject to arrest. (Id. ¶ 27). Semedo allegedly told the plaintiff about Elliot's offensive behavior, and Williams advised Semedo to report the incident and file a complaint with the on-duty shift supervisor at the BPD. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 29).
The plaintiff contends that on or about January 28, 2008, the BPD launched an investigation into the circumstances of Semedo's arrest. (Id. ¶ 30). Allegedly, the arrest also became the subject of media scrutiny, and a source of embarrassment to the City. (Id. ¶ 33). Williams claims it was no secret that he was the person who had encouraged Semedo to report the arresting officers' conduct. (Id.). In fact, Williams and Semedo allegedly continued to discuss Semedo's mistreatment in the presence of other BPD police officers. (Id. ¶ 31).
Williams alleges that there was no effort to protect Williams from possible retaliation by Elliot. . Thus, the plaintiff claims that in July 2008,Elliot was acting as Williams' shift supervisor when Williams was injured on the job. (Id. ¶ 35). Elliot responded to the scene of the accident and obtained a work-related injury report from Williams for the purpose of making a worker's compensation claim. (Id. ¶¶ 35, 37). However, Elliot allegedly refused to submit the report to the City's worker's compensation department. (Id. ¶¶ 36-37). Williams claims that as a result, he received no worker's compensation coverage during the time he was out on injury leave in July and August 2008, and was forced to use his vacation and personal time instead. (Id.).
In about September or October 2008, following Williams' return to work, a hearing took place at the BPD regarding Elliot's conduct during the arrest of Semedo. (Id. ¶¶ 39, 42). Williams alleges that he provided testimony and information at the hearing which was adverse to Elliot's interests and undermined Elliot's credibility. (Id. ¶ 40). Again, however, no efforts were made to protect Williams from retaliation by Elliot. (Id. ¶ 41). Consequently, Elliot allegedly remained Williams' supervisor, and was able to take adverse actions against the plaintiff. (Id.).
Elliot ultimately was terminated from employment with the BPD in 2009 as a result of his alleged role in Semedo's arrest. . As described below, the City has refused to indemnify Elliot in the present litigation on the grounds that his termination from the BPD was for cause. (Def. Ex. 4).1
Both Elliot and the City agree that during the time of the events giving rise to Williams' claims, the terms and conditions of Elliot's employment were governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"), as updated and amended by a Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Brockton and the Police Supervisors Union, Local 1162, L.I.U.A. ("Union") dated June 2006 ("MOA"). (See Elliot's Reply Mem. (Docket No. 22) at 2-3; City's Supp. Opp. Mem. (Docket No. 27) at 4-5). Significantly, Article XVI of the CBA contained provisions relating to the indemnification of police officers by the City. In particular, Article 16.3 specifically provided as follows:
(CBA at Art. 16.3 (emphasis added)).2
The policy for indemnification of Police Officers that was subsequently adopted by the parties to the CBA in accordance with Article 16.3(A) is set forth in the January 2006 MOA. Specifically, under the terms of the MOA, the City and the Union agreed that Article XVI of the CBA would be revised to read as follows:
(MOA at Art. 16 (emphasis added)).3 As described below, the parties dispute whether the City has an obligation to indemnify Elliot, under Massachusetts statutory law or the terms of the parties' Agreements, for acts giving rise to Williams' claims against him in this action.
After Williams initiated this lawsuit, Elliot requested that the City provide him with legal representation. (Def. Ex. 4). On July 30, 2012, litigation counsel for the City and the remaining police officer defendants sent Elliot a letter informing him that the City would not represent him or indemnify him in connection with this proceeding, and that Elliot would "be responsible for any and all attorney's fees, costs and judgments incurred against you in this action." (Def. Ex. 3). On August 3, 2012, the City Solicitor sent Elliot another letter confirming the City's refusal to represent or indemnify him. (Def. Ex. 4). Specifically, the City Solicitor stated that he had reviewed Elliot's request, but "that due...
To continue reading
Request your trial