241 F. Supp. 3d 288
D. Mass.2017Background
- John Amirault, a 31-year Malden police detective and head of the Detective Unit, was reassigned on Nov. 1, 2015 from that role to a newly created Accreditation Manager position; he alleges the reassignment eliminated overtime opportunities and cost him income.
- Amirault led two investigations: (1) alleged theft of City building-permit funds involving employee Enos Henry and (2) an alleged sexual assault at the Malden YMCA with potential involvement of Police Chief Kevin Molis’ brother, Frank Molis.
- Amirault alleges City officials (including Chief Kevin Molis and the Mayor) obstructed or failed to cooperate in those investigations; he complained in meetings with prosecutors, the City Council (executive session), and auditors, and shared investigative materials with other prosecutors when cases transferred counties.
- On Oct. 7, 2015, Molis informed Amirault of the pending reassignment; Amirault claims it was retaliation for his complaints about interference in the investigations and that the reassignment would foreclose overtime pay.
- Amirault sued Molis (individually and, implicitly, the City) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA); Molis moved to dismiss Counts I (§ 1983) and III (MCRA) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The magistrate judge granted the motion to dismiss: holding Amirault’s speech was made pursuant to his official duties (thus not protected under Garcetti) and that the MCRA claim also failed because there was no interference by threats, intimidation, or coercion and no underlying constitutional violation was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amirault’s statements are protected First Amendment speech (Garcetti inquiry) | Amirault says his complaints about city interference were matters of public concern and not part of his ordinary job duties, so he spoke as a citizen. | Molis argues the statements were made pursuant to Amirault’s official duties as head of the Detective Unit and thus unprotected under Garcetti. | Court: Speech was made pursuant to official duties (investigative reports to city officials/prosecutors); not protected; § 1983 claim dismissed. |
| Whether MCRA claim states interference by threats, intimidation or coercion | Amirault contends the reassignment and loss of overtime constituted economic coercion actionable under MCRA. | Molis contends reassignment is not threats/intimidation/coercion as defined by MCRA. | Court: Dismissed — no threats/intimidation/physical coercion alleged, no contractual entitlement shown; MCRA element unmet. |
| Whether an official-capacity § 1983 claim or qualified-immunity defense bars relief | Amirault implicitly asserted official-capacity claim/§ 1983 against Molis; argues First Amendment violation. | Molis notes qualified immunity and that official-capacity claim is effectively against the City (requires municipal policy/custom). | Court: Official-capacity claim would be treated as a municipal claim and fails for lack of alleged municipal policy/custom; qualified immunity not reached after dismissal on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public-employee speech made pursuant to official duties is not First Amendment protected)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (speech is protected only if it is not ordinarily within scope of employee's duties)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (balance employee's free-speech interests against government employer's interest in efficient service)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Decotiis v. Whittemore, 635 F.3d 22 (First Circuit application of Garcetti factors)
- Cooperman v. Individual, Inc., 171 F.3d 43 (pleading standards on motion to dismiss)