Goodmaster Suit

8/13/2019 Goodmaster Suit

1/22

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RONALD GOODMASTER ::

Plaintiff, ::

VS. : CIVIL NO.::

THE TOWN OF SEYMOUR, :TOWN OF SEYMOUR BOARD :OF SELECTMEN, W. KURT MILLER, :LUCY MCCONOLOGUE and :MICHAEL METZLER, :

:Defendants. : JANUARY 19, 2014

C O M P L A I N T

COUNT ONE

1. This is an action for money damages to redress the deprivation by the

defendants of rights secured to the plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United

States and the State of Connecticut. The defendants engaged in age discrimination,

harassment, hostile work environment, disparate treatment of and retaliation against

the plaintiff, a Police Officer within the Police Department of the defendant Town of

Seymour. The conduct of the defendants has resulted in the deprivation of the

plaintiffs constitutional rights to equal protection, due process and freedom of speech.

The conduct of the defendants has violated rights secured to the plaintiff under the laws

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 1 of 22


2/22

2

of the State of Connecticut, a invoked pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction of the

court.

2. For an extended period of time continuing to the present, the plaintiff has

been subjected to an ongoing pattern of harassment, discrimination, retaliation and

disparate treatment based upon his age, and in retaliation for his protected complaints.

The defendants have unfairly punished, disciplined and terminated the plaintiff and

have treated him differently than similarly situated Police Officers not of the plaintiff's

age or who have not complained about defendants unlawful conduct.

3. Said conduct is and was persistent and ongoing to the present, thus

constituting a continuous course of conduct.

4. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Title 28 United

States Code 1331, 1343(3) and 1367(a), and Title 42 United States Code 1983

and 1988.

5. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the plaintiff, Ronald

Goodmaster, was and is an adult citizen of the United States, residing in Naugatuck,

Connecticut. The plaintiff is over 65 years of age, and was born on March 8, 1948.

6. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Town of Seymour

was and is a municipal corporation and the employer of the plaintiff.

7. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Town of

Seymour, Board of Selectmen, was and is a duly authorized governmental entity. Under



3/22

3

a charter adopted in 1971 and most recently amended in 2008, the defendant Town of

Seymour has a Town Meeting form of government with a seven-member Board of

Selectmen. The First Selectman serves as the full-time chief executive officer of the

defendant Town with the defendant Board of Selectmen acting similar to a board of

trustees. There are a number of commissions and authorities established under the

charter. All boards and commissions are appointed by the defendant Board of

Selectmen.

8. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant Board and its individual

members were employees, officers and agents of the defendant Town of Seymour,

acting in their official capacities. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant Board

and its individual members are sued in their individual and official capacities.

9. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant W. Kurt Miller

was First Selectman, and chief executive officer and employee, officer and agent of the

defendant Town of Seymour, acting in his official capacity. The defendant Miller is

sued both in his individual capacity and official capacity.

10. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Lucy

McConologue was Chairman of The Board of Police Commissioners, Town of

Seymour, and employee, officer and agent of the defendant Town of Seymour, acting in

her official capacity. The defendant McConologue is sued both in her individual

capacity and official capacity.



4/22

4

11. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Michael Metzler

was Chief of The Police Department, Town of Seymour, and employee, officer and

agent of the defendant Town of Seymour, acting in his official capacity. The defendant

Metzler is sued both in his individual capacity and official capacity.

12. During all times mentioned in this complaint, the defendants were acting

under color of law, that is, under color of the Constitution, statutes, laws, rules,

regulations, customs and usages of the United States, the State of Connecticut and the

Town of Seymour.

13. At all times relevant to the instant complaint, the plaintiff was employed by

the defendant Town as a Police Officer in defendants Police Department.

14. At all times relevant to the instant complaint, the defendant Town was and is

an employer with more than 50 employees.

15. The plaintiff has been employed as a Police Officer since 1983. The plaintiff

was a Woodbridge, Connecticut Police Officer from 1983 to 1986. From 1986 to 1989,

the plaintiff was a Police Officer for the Regional Water Authority of New Haven.

16. The plaintiff became a Police Officer for the defendant Town in 1989. Due

to the excellence of his work, the plaintiff was promoted to Detective/Youth Officer in

1996. Due to the continuing excellence of his work, the plaintiff was promoted to

Detective Sergeant in 2000.



5/22

5

17. Throughout his work with the defendant Town, the plaintiff has received

numerous accolades and citations. The citations have been both to him personally,

and to the unit he commanded.

18. Throughout the his tenure with the defendant Town, the plaintiff has been

outspoken in his criticism of, iter alia, the defendant Town, its Police Department, and

the individual defendants. The plaintiff has challenged actions he perceived as

unlawful, unethical and unfair. The plaintiff has taken the defendants to task when he

believed them to be wrong.

19. The plaintiff has challenged the defendants actions by use of the grievance

process available to him as a member of the collective bargaining unit. The plaintiff has

filed Freedom of Information Act requests upon the defendants, and has gone to

hearings before that Commission to compel the defendants to abide by the law.

20. The plaintiff has filed grievances and complaints against the defendant

Town and against the defendant Police Chief Michael Metzler. The plaintiffs

complaints have been about age discrimination and defendants retaliation against him

for trying to expose the mismanagement of the defendants Police Department. The

plaintiff recently filed EEOC and CHRO complaints against defendant Town, upon

which merit was found. These complaints against the defendant were resolved, and

EEOC terminated its action in August, 2012. This was approximately one month before

the defendants took their unlawful actions against the plaintiff.



6/22

6

21. The plaintiff has been successful in his challenges to the defendants. On no

fewer than three occasions, improper disciplinary actions taken against him by the

defendant Town have been reversed.

22. On March 8, 2013, the plaintiff turned sixty-five years old.

23. Connecticut law provides police officers the right to request that they

continue to serve as Police Officers beyond sixty-five years of age. Implicit in this right

is that determinations upon such requests are to be made fairly and objectively, without

discriminatory or retaliatory animus.

24. As the plaintiff approached his sixty-fifth birthday, he timely made such a

request to the defendants, by submitting a request to the defendants Board of Police

Commissioners.

25. By and through its actions and the Town Charter, the defendant Town and

Board held said Board out to be, and in fact was, the appropriate and legally correct

entity to receive and decide such requests.

26. In every prior instance where a Police Officer of the defendant Town of

Seymour sought to work beyond sixty-five years of age, that request was submitted to,

and decided by the Board of Police Commissioners of the defendant Town of Seymour.

27. As detailed in its Minutes, all requests for such extensions were submitted to

and decided by the Board of Police Commissioners of the defendant Town of Seymour:



7/22

7

On December 16, 1971, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of

Police Commissioners, a letter was received from Officer William King requesting a two

year extension as a police officer as he was over the age limit with no pension. The

request was approved by all Commissioners;

On March 21, 1974, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of

Police Commissioners, a motion was made and accepted for a two year extension to

March 14, 1976 for police officer Salvatore Feducia;

On June 17, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of

Police Commissioners, a motion was made that the request for a one year extension of

employment by Lt. Salvatore Feducia to March 31, 1978 be tabled;

On July 15, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of Police

Commissioners, a motion was made the request for a one year extension of his

employment by Lt. Salvatore Feducia to March 31, 1978 was again tabled;

On August 19, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of

Police Commissioners, a motion was made to again table the request of Lt. Salvatore

Feducia for a one year extension of his employment to March 31, 1978, which was

unanimously carried;

On September 16, 1976: at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board

of Police Commissioners, a motion was made that the request for a one year extension



8/22

8

of his employment by Lt. Salvatore Feducia to March 31, 1978, was again tabled and

unamimously carried.

On October 14, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of

Police Commissioners, a motion was made by Board member Arthur Baldwin to reject

the request of Lt. Salvatore Feducia for a one year extension of his employment with

the Seymour Police Department. A motion was also made to notify Miss Anna

LoPresti, First Selectman, of the decision of the Commission so that the Board of

Selectmen may take appropriate action. The motions were seconded by Board member

Fritz Hummel, and unanimously carried;

On August 18, 1977, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of

Police Commissioners, a motion was made to separate the position of Lieutenant

Detective into two positions, namely Lieutenant and create the new position of

Detective upon the retirement of Lieutenant Detective Salvatore Feducia. Motion

unanimously carried;

On September 15, 1977, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board

of Police Commissioners, a motion was made to present Lt. Salvatore Feducia at his

retirement party a plaque from the Board of Police Commissioners and a watch from

the Seymour Police Department. Motion unanimously carried.

28. The defendant Towns Board of Police Commissioners is the body entrusted

with personnel decisions related to the defendants Police Department. In every other



9/22

9

instance where a Police Officer of the defendant Town of Seymour sought to work

beyond sixty-five years of age, that request was submitted to, and decided by the

Board of Police Commissioners of the defendant Town.

29. As such, the plaintiff properly submitted his request to the Board of Police

Commissioners of the defendant Town.

30. On September 13, 2012, the Board of Police Commissioners of the Town of

Seymour lawfully voted to extend the plaintiffs service as a Police Officer with the

defendant Town by one year. The plaintiff was approved to work until March 8, 2014.

31. At the time of the Boards decision, the plaintiff was, and he presently

remains fit, fully capable, and eminently qualified to continue in the position which he

has successfully filled for many years.

32. This was obviously the case, and known to the defendants. Agents of the

defendant Town admitted and acknowledged that, due to his experience and abilities,

keeping the plaintiff around as long as possible is a no-brainer, especially since the

defendant Towns Police Department had been struggling with manpower shortages.

33. Defendant Town admitted and acknowledged that extending the plaintiffs

service is in the best interest of the Town . . . [The plaintiff is] a highly qualified and

highly trained police supervisor with over 23 years of service to the Town of Seymour . .

. thats tough to replace.



10/22

10

34. The defendant Town stated that, We would be doing a disservice to the

Town by not acting on this to retain the plaintiff as an employee.

35. Another agent of defendant Town agreed, and reiterated that the Seymour

Police Commission is continually hearing from the defendants administration about the

manpower shortage. This agent also acknowledged and admitted that retaining the

plaintiff would go far toward addressing the police manpower shortage problem.

36. The defendant Town admitted that extending the plaintiffs employment

would not cost it any extra money.

37. After deciding to do so, the defendant Town stated that it is a reasonably

prudent move to retain the plaintiff.

38. Importantly, the defendant Town admitted that the determination to retain

the plaintiff past his sixty-fifth birthday, made by defendants Board of Police

Commissioners, is consistent with what the [defendant] Town has done in the past.

39. In no instance other than the plaintiffs, has a lawful decision of the Board on

a request to extend police service been disregarded by the defendants.

40. In no instance other than the plaintiffs, has a lawful decision of that Board

been assailed by the defendants.

41. In no instance other than the plaintiffs, has a lawful decision of that Board

been overturned by the defendants.



11/22

11

42. In no instance other than the plaintiffs, has the defendant claimed that its

Board of Selectmen, rather than the Board of Police Commissioners, has the exclusive

authority to decide whether or not to continue an employees service as a Police Officer.

43. Nevertheless, the defendants did so in the plaintiffs case, and immediately

after it was made, the defendants refused to abide by the decision of the Board of

Police Commissioners.

44. Thereafter, the defendants subjected the plaintiff to a hearing before, and

decision by defendant Board of Selectmen. In no instance other than the plaintiffs has

a Police Officer seeking extension of his service had to submit to hearing before the

defendant Board of Selectmen.

45. In no instance other than the plaintiffs has the defendant Board of

Selectmen, rather than the Board of Police Commissioners, ever made the decision

whether to continue the service of a Police Officer beyond the age of sixty-five.

46. The defendants purpose in refusing to abide by the lawful decision of the

Board to extend the plaintiffs police service and to subject him to hearing before the

defendant Board of Selectmen was to unlawfully deprive the plaintiff of his employment

for discriminatory or retaliatory purposes.

47. At the Board of Selectmen hearing, the defendant First Selectman, W. Kurt

Miller, through his statements and actions, clearly expressed his unlawful animus



12/22

12

toward the plaintiff, and demonstrated that his decision was based upon unlawful,

rather than lawful motives.

48. At that hearing, the defendant Miller publicly admitted that he perceived the

plaintiff to be a liability to the Town, despite the defendant Board of Selectmens, and

his, admitted ignorance of the plaintiffs work performance and of police personnel

decisions generally.

49. The defendant Miller publicly admitted that he was motivated by concern for

how the plaintiffs extension of service would affect younger officers on the promotion

list.

50. In fact, an officer significantly younger than the plaintiff was nearly

immediately promoted to the plaintiffs position.

51. After unlawfully refusing to abide by the decision of the Board of Police

Commissioners and unlawfully imposing upon the plaintiff a requirement to submit his

request to the defendant Board of Selectmen, the defendant Board refused to continue

the plaintiffs police service beyond the plaintiffs sixty-fifth birthday.

52. As such, the defendants terminated the plaintiffs employment on March 8,

2013, the plaintiffs sixty-fifth birthday.

53. The defendant McConologue participated in the unlawful deprivation of the

plaintiffs employment. On her own and at the urging of defendants Miller and Metzler,

McConologue acted unlawfully to pressure the Board of Police Commissioners to



13/22

13

change its decision to extend the service of the plaintiff and to subject the plaintiff to

decision, and denial, by the defendants Board of Selectman and Miller.

54. Defendant McConologue knowingly or recklessly participated in hiring

practices declared unlawful by the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission. In

violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-231(a), inter alia, defendant

McConologue unlawfully permitted the defendant Metzler to participate in the hiring

process of the plaintiffs replacement.

55. The defendant Metzler participated in the unlawful deprivation of the

plaintiffs employment. Metzler participated in pressuring the Board of Police

Commissioners to change its decision to extend the service of the plaintiff, and to

subject the plaintiff to decision, and denial, by the defendants Board of Selectman and

Miller.

56. Defendant Metzler knowingly or recklessly participated in hiring practices

declared unlawful by the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission. In violation

of Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-231(a), inter alia, defendant Metzler

unlawfully participated in the hiring process of the plaintiffs replacement.

57. The defendants refused to extend the plaintiffs service and terminated him

due to his age and in retaliation against him for the plaintiffs complaints, inter alia,

about personal mistreatment and departmental mismanagement.



14/22

14

58. The reasons given by the defendants for their unlawful actions are

pretextual. At the hearing, the defendant Miller admitted that it knew nothing about the

plaintiffs performance and police personnel decisions, as such decisions were made by

the Board of Police Commissioners.

59. For an extended period of time continuing to the date of the plaintiffs

termination, the plaintiff has been subjected to an ongoing pattern of harassment,

discrimination, hostility and disparate treatment based upon his age and in retaliation

for his complaints to and about the defendant.

60. The conduct of the defendants and defendants agents, officers or

employees has been continuous, persistent and unabated.

61. On or about January 13, 2014, the defendant Miller blocked the plaintiffs

appointment as an unpaid, volunteer Fire Investigator to the defendant Town of

Seymours Fire Marshals office. The plaintiff is fully licensed and qualified for the

position, yet defendant Miller will not appoint the plaintiff due to his discriminatory and

retaliatory animus against him.

62. The actions of the defendants therefore constitute a continuing course of

conduct.

63. As detailed herein and continuing to the date of the plaintiffs termination

and to the present, the defendants subjected the plaintiff to an ongoing pattern of



15/22

15

harassment, discrimination, hostility and disparate treatment based upon the plaintiffs

age and in retaliation for the plaintiffs complaints to and about the defendant.

64. The defendants further subjected the plaintiff to deprivation of his

constitutional rights, including equal protection, due process and freedom of speech.

65. Throughout the plaintiffs employment with the defendant as detailed herein

and continuing to date, the plaintiff was subjected to an ongoing pattern of

discrimination, harassment, retaliation and disparate treatment. The conduct was

continuous, persistent and ongoing. The conduct was based upon the plaintiffs age,

and the plaintiffs complaints to the defendants.

66. The plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies prerequisite to suit,

and has received a Release of Jurisdiction from the Connecticut Commission on

Human Rights and Opportunities and a Right to Sue Letter from the Equal Employment

Opportunities Commission.

67. In the manner described above, the defendant Town has subjected the

plaintiff to, inter alia, discrimination based upon his age.

68. In the manner described above, the actions of the defendant Town

constitute violations of the provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. 621, et seq.

69. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of

his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not



16/22

16

limited to loss of income and employment benefits; loss of employment and

employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of

mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police

Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at

large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress.

COUNT TWO

1.-66. Paragraphs 1-66 of Count One are hereby made Paragraphs 1-66 of

Count Two.

67. In the manner described above, the defendant Town has subjected the

plaintiff to, inter alia, retaliation.

68. In the manner described above, the defendant Town of Seymour has

violated the rights secured to the plaintiff by the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e.










17/22

17

COUNT THREE


Count Three.

67. For the purpose of this Count, the individual defendants are sued in their

individual capacity.

68. The aforesaid actions of individual defendants, as described herein,

constitute invidious discrimination and retaliation in violation of the plaintiff's

constitutional rights to equal protection, due process of the laws and freedom of speech

as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.








COUNT FOUR


Count Four.



18/22

18

67. The defendant Miller is the highest policy setting authority on matters related

to the instant complaint, including, inter alia the hiring, training, supervision,

investigation and discipline of defendant Town personnel, including the plaintiff and all

defendants.

68. A municipal policy or custom exists in the defendant Town of Seymour as a

result of the municipality's deliberate indifference to the violation of constitutional rights.

69. The actions of the defendants as stated herein were and are approved,

sanctioned, taken upon the direction of and adopted by the defendants Miller and

Town. As such, the defendant Town has incurred liability for the actions of the

defendants.

70. The actions and conduct of the defendant Town evidence an official policy

or custom which has caused the plaintiff to be subjected to a denial of one or more of

his constitutional rights.

71. As such, the defendant Town has incurred municipal liability.








19/22

19



COUNT FIVE


Count Five.

67. The conduct of the defendant Town and its agents, officers and employees

constitute violations of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Sections 46a-60

et seq. of the Connecticut General Statutes.








COUNT SIX


Count Six.

67. The defendants have agreed and conspired to deprive the plaintiff of his

rights as stated herein.



20/22

20

68. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the defendants have taken the substantial

steps of, inter alia, refusing to recognize the validity of the plaintiffs extension of

employment as lawfully determined by the Board of Police Commissioners; unlawfully

subjecting him to determination by the defendant Board of Selectmen; and, unlawfully

permitting the defendant Metzler to participate in the hiring process.

69. In the manner described, the defendants have engaged in civil consipracy.








COUNT SEVEN


Count Seven.

67. The actions of the defendants were extreme and outrageous.

68. The actions of the defendants were intentional.

69. The actions of the defendants were likely to and did cause the plaintiff

emotional distress, and that emotional distress was severe.



21/22

21

70. The actions of the defendants constitute the intentional infliction of

emotional distress.








WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendants as follows:

A. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to back pay, lost overtime

pay, lost vacation pay, lost seniority and other employment-related benefits; and

compensation for other economic losses, including but not limited to emotional distress,

physical illness and attorney's fees;

B. Punitive damages;

C. Costs of this action;

D. Reasonable attorney's fees;



22/22

22

E. Declaratory relief, recognizing the validity of the Board of Police

Commissions approval of the plaintiffs employment extension and immediate

restoration to his position, and restoration of all lost wages, benefits, rank, seniorty, etc.

F. Such other relief as this Court shall consider to be fair and equitable.

CLAIM FOR JURY TRIAL

The plaintiff claims trial by jury in this case.

THE PLAINTIFF

BY /s/ William S. PalmieriWILLIAM S. PALMIERIFederal Bar No. ct14361Law Offices of William S. Palmieri, L.L.C.129 Church Street, Suite 405

New Haven, CT 06510(203) 562-3100(203) 909-6006 (fax)[email protected] Attorney

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

Goodmaster Suit