493 F.Supp.3d 1
D. Conn.2020Background
- Scaife was hired as Meriden City Manager under a three‑year employment agreement and the City Charter; both expressly allowed termination without cause by a majority City Council vote and provided six months’ pay/benefits if terminated without cause.
- Beginning in 2016–2017 Scaife reported alleged financial improprieties in the Public Utilities Department (PUD) allocation and raised ethics concerns about staff and councilors; a PUD forensic study was commissioned and produced a draft in December 2017.
- The Council gave Scaife a 2% raise on October 30, 2017 (9–2 vote). In December 2017 Scaife submitted several complaints alleging ethics and misconduct by staff and council members.
- On December 18, 2017 the City Council voted 8–0 to terminate Scaife without cause effective immediately, providing six months’ salary/benefits; some councilors stated the termination was due to "discord" and low morale among staff.
- Scaife sued alleging (1) retaliation in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §31‑51q, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of contract, and (4–5) deprivation of property and liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment (stigma‑plus theory).
- The court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim and the stigma‑plus liberty (due process) claim, and granted summary judgment for the City on the implied covenant, breach of contract, and property‑interest due process claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation under Conn. Gen. Stat. §31‑51q | Scaife argues his protected speech about PUD overcharges and ethics violations was a substantial/motivating factor in his termination (temporal proximity and pretext). | City argues termination was for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons—growing discord and low morale—and would have occurred absent protected speech. | Denied summary judgment: factual disputes about motive and pretext (jury question). |
| Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Scaife contends termination was in bad faith and violated public policy (retaliation). | City says employment was at‑will under the contract/charter and an adequate statutory remedy (§31‑51q) exists, precluding the tort claim. | Granted for City: at‑will contract and statutory remedy preclude implied‑covenant claim. |
| Breach of contract | Scaife argues procedural/charter irregularities and premeeting caucusing breached the employment agreement. | City points to express contract/charter language allowing termination without cause by majority vote; no contractual breach. | Granted for City: contract permitted termination without cause; no breach shown. |
| Property‑interest due process | Scaife contends the Charter created a protected property interest entitling him to pretermination process. | City argues neither contract nor Charter guaranteed continued employment; majority‑vote requirement did not create a tenure property interest. | Granted for City: no legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment. |
| Liberty‑interest (stigma‑plus) due process | Scaife alleges council statements (publicly linking him to "discord") were stigmatizing, public, and made concurrent with dismissal, blocking future municipal employment. | City disputes that statements were false or sufficiently stigmatizing to create "significant roadblocks" to Scaife's career. | Denied summary judgment: triable issues whether statements were stigmatizing, public, and causally linked to dismissal and career harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (summary‑judgment standard requires construing evidence in nonmovant’s favor)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for assessing genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (defense may show it would have taken same adverse action absent protected conduct)
- Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority, 757 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2014) (retaliation burden shifting and Mt. Healthy framework applied)
- Smith v. County of Suffolk, 776 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2015) (causation in retaliation claims may be shown by temporal proximity or direct evidence)
- Segal v. City of New York, 459 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2006) (elements and framework for stigma‑plus liberty claim)
- Patterson v. City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2d Cir. 2004) (reputation alone is insufficient for due process; stigma‑plus requires tangible deprivation)
- Magnan v. Anaconda Indus., Inc., 479 A.2d 781 (Conn. 1984) (scope of implied covenant of good faith; not to convert at‑will employment into for‑cause protection)
- Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C., 745 A.2d 178 (Conn. 2000) (availability of statutory remedies can preclude implied‑covenant wrongful‑discharge claims)