VGA Prevails at Summary Judgment Stage in a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Claiming First Amendment Retaliation

In 2024, a Fall River police captain brought a civil rights lawsuit in the Massachusetts Superior Court alleging that the City of Fall River and the Fall River Chief of Police violated his civil rights.  According to the plaintiff’s complaint, when the plaintiff was a lieutenant, he was given information that he believed confirmed that some members of a specialized unit within the Department had been receiving more compensation than they were entitled to receive through the applicable union contract.  The plaintiff said that he reported that information at a union meeting attended by a number of superior officers.

The person that the plaintiff claimed was responsible for the improper compensation entries was, at that time, a captain in the Police Department.  The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that, later in time, that captain became the Chief of Police and a campaign of retaliation was advanced against the plaintiff.  More specifically, the plaintiff claimed that he was not selected for promotion on various occasions, despite what he believed to be his superior qualifications compared to those who were selected, and, when he finally was promoted, it was to a captain’s position that was the least lucrative of the possibilities.  He brought claims against the City for violation of the state’s whistleblower law and against the Chief for a violation of the state civil rights act and federal civil rights law based upon a First Amendment retaliation theory of liability.

VGA attorney Andy Gambaccini first removed the case from state court to federal court based upon the existence of federal causes of action.  Once in federal court, the parties engaged in discovery events over the course of a number of months, including a very lengthy deposition of the plaintiff as his legal theory was locked into place.

At the conclusion of discovery, the City and the Chief filed a request for the entry of summary judgment in their favor.  Through the plaintiff’s opposition, he abandoned the whistleblower claim against the City and the state civil rights claim against the Chief, leaving only the First Amendment retaliation theory against the Chief needing adjudication by the Court.

Following oral argument, the Chief Judge of the District of Massachusetts federal court issued a decision noting the plaintiff’s abandonment of two of his three claims.  As to the remaining First Amendment retaliation claim, the Court agreed with VGA’s argument that the state of federal law was such that qualified immunity attached to the Chief’s actions.  Consequently, summary judgment was entered in favor of the Chief on the last remaining claim.