180 A.3d 555
R.I.2018Background
- Terzian, a City of Providence employee and Union member since 2003, was arrested (off-duty) in August 2007 on weapon/assault charges; the City suspended him without pay the next day.
- After conviction in May 2008, Terzian was sentenced and, while incarcerated, received a pre-termination hearing (he was absent); the City terminated him in October 2008 for inability to report to work.
- The Union filed grievances over suspension and termination but did not pursue arbitration; a second grievance was filed after Terzian’s release but was late under the CBA.
- Terzian sued the City Treasurer and the Union in 2011 alleging breach of the CBA, violation of a statute, and that the Union breached its duty of fair representation.
- Both defendants moved for summary judgment; the Superior Court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Terzian appealed pro se.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Terzian forfeited appellate review because his brief failed to comply with Rule 16(a) — it lacked citations to the record and legal authority and failed to develop issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the City permitted to suspend/terminate Terzian for off-duty criminal conduct? | Termination/suspension unlawful; City could not terminate for off-duty conduct. | City argued termination was permissible (e.g., inability to perform duties) and followed procedure. | Not reached on merits; issue waived for inadequate briefing. |
| Did the Union breach its duty of fair representation by not pursuing arbitration? | Union failed to fairly represent Terzian by not taking grievances to arbitration. | Union argued it properly handled grievances and did not foreclose remedies. | Not reached on merits; issue waived for inadequate briefing. |
| Did the Superior Court err in granting summary judgment? | Trial error argued by Terzian (pro se). | Defendants argued no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. | Not reached on merits; appeal dismissed under raise-or-waive rule for failure to brief issues. |
| Should pro se status excuse Rule 16(a) briefing deficiencies? | Terzian implicitly requested leniency as pro se. | Defendants relied on procedural rules and waiver doctrine. | Pro se status did not excuse noncompliance; waiver applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Hornby, 173 A.3d 868 (R.I. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment).
- McGarry v. Pielech, 108 A.3d 998 (R.I. 2015) (raise-or-waive rule; failure to develop argument waives issue).
- Horton v. Portsmouth Police Dep’t, 22 A.3d 1115 (R.I. 2011) (mere statement of issue without meaningful discussion constitutes waiver).
- Jacksonbay Builders, Inc. v. Azarmi, 869 A.2d 580 (R.I. 2005) (pro se litigants receive some leeway but are not exempt from procedural rules).