Thomas v. Town of Salisbury, 277 F. Supp. 3d 161

Background

Mark Thomas, a long‑time Salisbury police officer, sent a February 24, 2011 memorandum to the Board of Selectmen accusing Acting Chief Kevin Sullivan of sexual harassment; the letter relied on information Thomas learned in his police role.
Around the same time the town was investigating Chief L’Esperance; that investigation produced allegations against Thomas, prompting the Town Manager (Neil Harrington) to hire an outside investigator (Robert St. Pierre) to investigate Thomas.
St. Pierre recommended termination; Harrington upheld part of the charges and Thomas was fired in February 2012. An arbitrator later found no just cause and Thomas was reinstated and paid back wages.
Thomas sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First Amendment retaliation (Count I) and various state law claims against Harrington, the Town, and others. The court previously dismissed many claims but left Count I and several state claims.
On summary judgment the court concluded Thomas’s report was made pursuant to his duties as a police officer (not as a private citizen), so his speech was not First Amendment protected; the court also held Harrington entitled to qualified immunity. Summary judgment granted as to Count I; remaining state claims deferred for possible remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thomas’s report to the Board was protected citizen speech under the First Amendment	Thomas says his whistleblower letter addressed public‑concern sexual‑harassment and was made as a private citizen, not pursuant to job duties	Harrington/Town say the report arose from Thomas’s police duties, followed department policy/chain‑of‑command, and thus was employee speech under Garcetti	Court: Speech was made pursuant to Thomas’s duties as an officer (not protected) and summary judgment for defendants granted
Whether the Pickering balancing favors protection of Thomas’s speech	Thomas argues subject matter was public concern and balancing should protect him	Defendants argue government interest in discipline and efficiency outweigh employee interest where speech is job‑related	Court: Did not reach full Pickering balancing because speech was unprotected under Garcetti/Lane framework
Whether Harrington is personally liable or entitled to qualified immunity	Thomas contends Harrington retaliated and acted unlawfully in directing/approving the investigation and discipline	Harrington asserts qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established and he consulted counsel	Court: Harrington entitled to qualified immunity; reasonable official could have believed speech unprotected at the time
Municipal liability for § 1983 claim	Thomas seeks Town liability under § 1983 in addition to Harrington	Town argues no distinct municipal claim once individual official did not violate constitutional rights	Court: Town cannot be liable where the official inflicted no constitutional harm; summary judgment for Town on Count I

Key Cases Cited

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (speech pursuant to official duties is not protected by the First Amendment)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (public‑employee speech balancing test)
Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (clarifies that the critical question is whether speech is ordinarily within job duties)
Decotiis v. Whittemore, 635 F.3d 22 (First Circuit three‑part test for public‑employee speech claims)
Wilber v. Curtis, 872 F.3d 15 (discusses discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are dismissed)