Perkins v. City of Attleboro, 969 F. Supp. 2d 158

Background

Dennis Perkins, a City of Attleboro Fire Department Captain, sent a July 3, 2009 letter to his union president opposing an extension of Chief Churchill’s service past mandatory retirement; Perkins stood to benefit from using existing civil service exam results for promotion.
On July 4, 2009 Perkins was involved in an altercation with firefighter Vincent Bailey; subsequent investigation gathered disparaging written statements about Perkins, some prepared after coordination with union officials.
Deputy Chief Livesey investigated; Perkins alleges the investigation was transformed into an effort to disparage him, leading to disciplinary action (suspension) and related adverse publicity and an MCAD filing by Bailey.
Perkins filed a 17-count Second Amended Complaint asserting federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First and Fourteenth Amendment violations), § 1985 conspiracy, and multiple state-law claims against the City, individual firefighters, and the Union.
Magistrate Judge Dein recommended granting motions to dismiss by the City and the Union: federal claims (Counts I, II, IV, V, VI, VII) dismissed for failure to state a claim; recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. District Judge O’Toole adopted the R&R and granted the motions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Perkins’ July 3 letter was protected First Amendment speech	Perkins claims the letter opposed extension of the Chief and was public‑concern speech; discipline was retaliation	City/Union argue the letter was internal, job‑related, and not public‑concern speech	Held: Letter not protected — written pursuant to official duties and not on matter of public concern; Counts I & II dismissed
Whether Perkins spoke as a private citizen when communicating with the union	Perkins contends he spoke as a citizen criticizing a public‐policy decision	Defendants say the communication was part of workplace/union grievance and thus part of official duties	Held: Speech was in furtherance of his role as union member/employee and analogous to an internal grievance; not private‑citizen speech
Whether procedural due process was violated by the investigatory process and suspension	Perkins asserts investigatory bias, ambush interviews, and lack of meaningful process	Defendants point to pre‑deprivation meetings and post‑deprivation Civil Service Commission appeal process	Held: Due process satisfied (pre‑ and post‑deprivation procedures available); Count IV dismissed
Whether a Fourteenth Amendment privacy claim was stated by disclosure of personnel information	Perkins alleges public disclosure of confidential personnel information harmed him	Defendants argue the asserted privacy right is unsettled and individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; plaintiff failed to identify the information	Held: Claim dismissed — plaintiff waived response and failed to identify protected information; qualified immunity concerns noted
Whether Perkins pleaded a § 1985 conspiracy (class‑based animus)	Perkins alleges defendants conspired to disparage and discipline him in coordination	Defendants argue no class‑based, invidious discriminatory animus alleged; mere political/oppositional motive insufficient	Held: § 1985 claim dismissed — no cognizable protected class or invidious class‑based animus alleged
Whether the Union is a state actor for § 1983 purposes	Perkins alleges the Union acted jointly with city officials to influence investigation and discipline	Union contends it is private and not acting under color of state law	Held: At pleading stage, allegations sufficiently alleged joint action to survive dismissal on color‑of‑state‑law ground, but federal claims against Union dismissed on merits for same reasons as City

Key Cases Cited

Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993) (court may consider documents central to claims when authenticity undisputed)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech pursuant to official duties not protected by the First Amendment)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public‑employee speech doctrine; inquiry whether speech addresses matter of public concern)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing employee’s free‑speech interests against employer’s interest in efficient public service)
Curran v. Cousins, 509 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2007) (articulates three‑part test for public‑employee speech claims)
Weintraub v. Board of Education of City of New York, 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2010) (union grievance analogous to official duties; not private‑citizen speech)
Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (elements of § 1985(3) claim and requirement of class‑based invidious animus)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (tests for when private party action is attributable to the state)