Saunders v. Town of Hull
874 F.3d 324
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Scott F. Saunders, a Hull police officer and union president, discovered documents suggesting ~$130,000 in missing union-related funds and reported them to the Massachusetts Attorney General; an AG investigation and related civil/criminal actions followed.
- Saunders organized a union-wide vote of no confidence in Chief Richard Billings and provided a detailed list of complaints about Billings's conduct.
- A sergeant vacancy arose in 2014; both Saunders and another officer (Lepro) served 45-day acting trials and were favorably rated by the interview panel.
- Chief Billings recommended only Lepro for promotion; the Board of Selectmen adopted that recommendation and did not promote Saunders. Billings allegedly told Saunders that "Town Hall has my back" and threatened to let Saunders’s promotion list expire.
- Saunders sued the Town and Billings claiming First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violations of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act (MWA). The district court granted summary judgment for the Town on the § 1983 and MWA claims; Saunders appealed.
- The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 claim (no municipal ratification evidence), held Saunders waived a § 185(b)(3) MWA theory, and vacated the § 185(b)(1) dismissal, remanding with instructions to dismiss that state claim without prejudice so state courts can resolve the unsettled state-law question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal liability under § 1983 via ratification | Saunders: Board knew Billings's retaliatory motive and ratified it, so Town is liable | Town: Board was final policymaker but did not approve or authorize Billings's retaliatory basis | Affirmed: insufficient evidence Board knew of or approved retaliatory motive; no ratification under Praprotnik |
| Whether disclosure to AG is exempt from MWA notice requirement (§ 185(c)(2)(C)) | Saunders: his report to the AG qualifies as reporting a crime and thus removes written-notice requirement | Town: notice provision applies; disclosure by lawsuit or to a public body may not fall within the exception per precedent | Not decided on merits by the First Circuit; court declined to resolve and remanded state claim to state courts |
| Whether vote of no confidence invokes MWA § 185(b)(3) exception (objection/refusal) | Saunders: leading the no-confidence vote is protected under § 185(b)(3) and thus no written-notice required | Town: written-notice requirement applies; Saunders did not raise a § 185(b)(3) theory below | Waived: Saunders failed to press § 185(b)(3) in district court; appellate review denied |
| Whether federal court should keep pendent state-law MWA claim after dismissal of § 1983 | Saunders: urged resolution of MWA in federal forum or certification to SJC | Town: supported dismissal given absence of federal claim and state-law uncertainty | Affirmed dismissal without prejudice: court declines supplemental jurisdiction and leaves issue to Massachusetts courts; tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) applies |
Key Cases Cited
- City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1988) (municipal liability via ratification requires policymakers to approve both subordinate's decision and its basis)
- Walden v. City of Providence, 596 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2010) (applies Praprotnik ratification principles)
- Welch v. Ciampa, 542 F.3d 927 (1st Cir. 2008) (insufficient evidence to impute retaliation-based municipal liability where no proof board authorized subordinate's retaliatory act)
- Dirrane v. Brookline Police Dep't, 315 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2002) (interpreting MWA notice requirement as broadly preclusive when suit constitutes disclosure)
- Quazi v. Barnstable Cty., 877 N.E.2d 273 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (interpreting MWA to distinguish § 185(b)(1) disclosures from § 185(b)(3) objections for notice purposes)
- Wagner v. City of Holyoke, 404 F.3d 504 (1st Cir. 2005) (discusses applicability of MWA exception when plaintiff's filing of suit is the disclosure at issue)