Mark Mancini v. City of Providence
14-88
| R.I. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Mark Mancini, a Providence police sergeant, sued the City of Providence and Chief Hugh Clements, alleging denial of promotion in violation of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA).
- The federal district court certified the single legal question whether G.L. 1956 § 28-5-7(6) (the FEPA aiding-and-abetting provision) authorizes individual liability of an employee (e.g., a supervisory official).
- § 28-5-7(6) makes it unlawful for “any person, whether or not an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or employee, to aid, abet…” an unlawful employment practice.
- Mancini argued the statutory text plainly permits suits against individual employees; Clements argued the provision is ambiguous and does not impose individual liability.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court accepted the certified question and reviewed statutory construction de novo, considering statutory context, precedent, public policy, and agency (RICHR) interpretations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 28-5-7(6) authorizes individual liability for employees | Mancini: plain language (“any person … employee”) authorizes suits against individual employees | Clements: text is ambiguous in context; courts should not impose individual liability | No — § 28-5-7(6) does not provide for individual employee liability |
| Whether aiding-and-abetting language can mean a person aided/abetted themselves to create liability | Mancini: at least some jurisdictions permit derivative individual liability | Clements: such a reading creates circularity and is linguistically implausible | Court: rejecting the notion that an actor can be held liable as one who aided/abetted himself; that interpretation is unreasonable |
| Whether agency interpretation (RICHR) requiring individual liability controls | Mancini/RICHR: agency has long interpreted FEPA to reach individuals and merits deference | Clements: judicial construction required; agency not controlling on pure legal question | Court: agency deference considered but not dispositive; court gives final construction and declines to follow agency here |
| Whether FEPA’s remedial scheme and employer definition support individual liability | Mancini: liberal construction of FEPA favors broad remedies | Clements: statutory structure (e.g., employer defined by employee-count threshold) and remedies target employers, making individual liability incongruous | Court: statutory context and policy concerns (chilling supervisors, small-employer incongruity) weigh against individual liability |
Key Cases Cited
- DeMarco v. Travelers Ins. Co., 26 A.3d 585 (R.I. 2011) (statutory construction principles; de novo review)
- LaRoche v. State, 925 A.2d 885 (R.I. 2007) (plain-meaning approach to statutes)
- National Refrigeration, Inc. v. Capital Properties, Inc., 88 A.3d 1150 (R.I. 2014) (contextual reading over literalism)
- Ryan v. City of Providence, 11 A.3d 68 (R.I. 2011) (avoid illogical statutory interpretations)
- Fantini v. Salem State College, 557 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (First Circuit construction of Title VII analogous to state law)
- Reno v. Baird, 957 P.2d 1333 (Cal. 1998) (Cal. Supreme Court: FEHA aiding-and-abetting provision does not impose individual liability)
- Mills v. Hankla, 297 P.3d 158 (Alaska 2013) (Alaska Supreme Court rejecting aiding-and-abetting as basis for individual liability)
- Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., 832 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 2013) (Minnesota Supreme Court reasoning against individual liability)