Original Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 1 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
RONALD GOODMASTER
Plaintiff,
VS.
THE TOWN OF SEYMOUR,

TOWN OF SEYMOUR BOARD
OF SELECTMEN, W. KURT MILLER,
LUCY MCCONOLOGUE and
MICHAEL METZLER,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO.
JANUARY 19, 2014
COMPLAINT
COUNT ONE
1. This is an action for money damages to redress the deprivation by the
defendants of rights secured to the plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United
States and the State of Connecticut. The defendants engaged in age discrimination,
harassment, hostile work environment, disparate treatment of and retaliation against
the plaintiff, a Police Officer within the Police Department of the defendant Town of
Seymour. The conduct of the defendants has resulted in the deprivation of the
plaintiffs constitutional rights to equal protection, due process and freedom of speech.
The conduct of the defendants has violated rights secured to the plaintiff under the laws
of the State of Connecticut, a invoked pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction of the

court.
2. For an extended period of time continuing to the present, the plaintiff has
been subjected to an ongoing pattern of harassment, discrimination, retaliation and
disparate treatment based upon his age, and in retaliation for his protected complaints.
The defendants have unfairly punished, disciplined and terminated the plaintiff and
have treated him differently than similarly situated Police Officers not of the plaintiff's
age or who have not complained about defendants unlawful conduct.
3. Said conduct is and was persistent and ongoing to the present, thus
constituting a continuous course of conduct.
4. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Title 28 United
States Code 1331, 1343(3) and 1367(a), and Title 42 United States Code 1983
and 1988.
5. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the plaintiff, Ronald
Goodmaster, was and is an adult citizen of the United States, residing in Naugatuck,
Connecticut. The plaintiff is over 65 years of age, and was born on March 8, 1948.
6. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Town of Seymour
was and is a municipal corporation and the employer of the plaintiff.
7. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Town of
Seymour, Board of Selectmen, was and is a duly authorized governmental entity. Under
2
a charter adopted in 1971 and most recently amended in 2008, the defendant Town of
Seymour has a Town Meeting form of government with a seven-member Board of
Selectmen. The First Selectman serves as the full-time chief executive officer of the
defendant Town with the defendant Board of Selectmen acting similar to a board of
trustees. There are a number of commissions and authorities established under the
charter. All boards and commissions are appointed by the defendant Board of
Selectmen.
8. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant Board and its individual
members were employees, officers and agents of the defendant Town of Seymour,
acting in their official capacities. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant Board
and its individual members are sued in their individual and official capacities.
9. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant W. Kurt Miller
was First Selectman, and chief executive officer and employee, officer and agent of the
defendant Town of Seymour, acting in his official capacity. The defendant Miller is
sued both in his individual capacity and official capacity.
10. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Lucy
McConologue was Chairman of The Board of Police Commissioners, Town of
Seymour, and employee, officer and agent of the defendant Town of Seymour, acting in
her official capacity. The defendant McConologue is sued both in her individual
capacity and official capacity.
3
11. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Michael Metzler
was Chief of The Police Department, Town of Seymour, and employee, officer and
agent of the defendant Town of Seymour, acting in his official capacity. The defendant
Metzler is sued both in his individual capacity and official capacity.
12. During all times mentioned in this complaint, the defendants were acting
under color of law, that is, under color of the Constitution, statutes, laws, rules,
regulations, customs and usages of the United States, the State of Connecticut and the
Town of Seymour.
13. At all times relevant to the instant complaint, the plaintiff was employed by
the defendant Town as a Police Officer in defendants Police Department.
14. At all times relevant to the instant complaint, the defendant Town was and is
an employer with more than 50 employees.
15. The plaintiff has been employed as a Police Officer since 1983. The plaintiff
was a Woodbridge, Connecticut Police Officer from 1983 to 1986. From 1986 to 1989,
the plaintiff was a Police Officer for the Regional Water Authority of New Haven.
16. The plaintiff became a Police Officer for the defendant Town in 1989. Due
to the excellence of his work, the plaintiff was promoted to Detective/Youth Officer in
1996. Due to the continuing excellence of his work, the plaintiff was promoted to
Detective Sergeant in 2000.
17. Throughout his work with the defendant Town, the plaintiff has received
numerous accolades and citations. The citations have been both to him personally,
and to the unit he commanded.
18. Throughout the his tenure with the defendant Town, the plaintiff has been
outspoken in his criticism of, iter alia, the defendant Town, its Police Department, and
the individual defendants. The plaintiff has challenged actions he perceived as
unlawful, unethical and unfair. The plaintiff has taken the defendants to task when he
believed them to be wrong.
19. The plaintiff has challenged the defendants actions by use of the grievance
process available to him as a member of the collective bargaining unit. The plaintiff has
filed Freedom of Information Act requests upon the defendants, and has gone to
hearings before that Commission to compel the defendants to abide by the law.
20. The plaintiff has filed grievances and complaints against the defendant
Town and against the defendant Police Chief Michael Metzler. The plaintiffs
complaints have been about age discrimination and defendants retaliation against him
for trying to expose the mismanagement of the defendants Police Department. The
plaintiff recently filed EEOC and CHRO complaints against defendant Town, upon
which merit was found. These complaints against the defendant were resolved, and
EEOC terminated its action in August, 2012. This was approximately one month before
the defendants took their unlawful actions against the plaintiff.
5
21. The plaintiff has been successful in his challenges to the defendants. On no
fewer than three occasions, improper disciplinary actions taken against him by the
defendant Town have been reversed.
22. On March 8, 2013, the plaintiff turned sixty-five years old.
23. Connecticut law provides police officers the right to request that they
continue to serve as Police Officers beyond sixty-five years of age. Implicit in this right
is that determinations upon such requests are to be made fairly and objectively, without
discriminatory or retaliatory animus.
24. As the plaintiff approached his sixty-fifth birthday, he timely made such a
request to the defendants, by submitting a request to the defendants Board of Police
Commissioners.
25. By and through its actions and the Town Charter, the defendant Town and
Board held said Board out to be, and in fact was, the appropriate and legally correct
entity to receive and decide such requests.
26. In every prior instance where a Police Officer of the defendant Town of
Seymour sought to work beyond sixty-five years of age, that request was submitted to,
and decided by the Board of Police Commissioners of the defendant Town of Seymour.
27. As detailed in its Minutes, all requests for such extensions were submitted to
and decided by the Board of Police Commissioners of the defendant Town of Seymour:
On December 16, 1971, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of

Police Commissioners, a letter was received from Officer William King requesting a two
year extension as a police officer as he was over the age limit with no pension. The
request was approved by all Commissioners;
On March 21, 1974, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of
Police Commissioners, a motion was made and accepted for a two year extension to
March 14, 1976 for police officer Salvatore Feducia;
On June 17, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of
Police Commissioners, a motion was made that the request for a one year extension of
employment by Lt. Salvatore Feducia to March 31, 1978 be tabled;
On July 15, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of Police
Commissioners, a motion was made the request for a one year extension of his
employment by Lt. Salvatore Feducia to March 31, 1978 was again tabled;
On August 19, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of
Police Commissioners, a motion was made to again table the request of Lt. Salvatore
Feducia for a one year extension of his employment to March 31, 1978, which was
unanimously carried;
On September 16, 1976: at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board
of Police Commissioners, a motion was made that the request for a one year extension
of his employment by Lt. Salvatore Feducia to March 31, 1978, was again tabled and
unamimously carried.
On October 14, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of
Police Commissioners, a motion was made by Board member Arthur Baldwin to reject
the request of Lt. Salvatore Feducia for a one year extension of his employment with
the Seymour Police Department. A motion was also made to notify Miss Anna
LoPresti, First Selectman, of the decision of the Commission so that the Board of
Selectmen may take appropriate action. The motions were seconded by Board member
Fritz Hummel, and unanimously carried;
On August 18, 1977, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of
Police Commissioners, a motion was made to separate the position of Lieutenant
Detective into two positions, namely Lieutenant and create the new position of
Detective upon the retirement of Lieutenant Detective Salvatore Feducia. Motion
unanimously carried;
On September 15, 1977, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board
of Police Commissioners, a motion was made to present Lt. Salvatore Feducia at his
retirement party a plaque from the Board of Police Commissioners and a watch from
the Seymour Police Department. Motion unanimously carried.
28. The defendant Towns Board of Police Commissioners is the body entrusted
with personnel decisions related to the defendants Police Department. In every other
8
instance where a Police Officer of the defendant Town of Seymour sought to work
beyond sixty-five years of age, that request was submitted to, and decided by the
Board of Police Commissioners of the defendant Town.
29. As such, the plaintiff properly submitted his request to the Board of Police
Commissioners of the defendant Town.
30. On September 13, 2012, the Board of Police Commissioners of the Town of
Seymour lawfully voted to extend the plaintiffs service as a Police Officer with the
defendant Town by one year. The plaintiff was approved to work until March 8, 2014.
31. At the time of the Boards decision, the plaintiff was, and he presently
remains fit, fully capable, and eminently qualified to continue in the position which he
has successfully filled for many years.
32. This was obviously the case, and known to the defendants. Agents of the
defendant Town admitted and acknowledged that, due to his experience and abilities,
keeping the plaintiff around as long as possible is a no-brainer, especially since the
defendant Towns Police Department had been struggling with manpower shortages.
33. Defendant Town admitted and acknowledged that extending the plaintiffs
service is in the best interest of the Town . . . [The plaintiff is] a highly qualified and
highly trained police supervisor with over 23 years of service to the Town of Seymour . .
. thats tough to replace.
34. The defendant Town stated that, We would be doing a disservice to the
Town by not acting on this to retain the plaintiff as an employee.
35. Another agent of defendant Town agreed, and reiterated that the Seymour
Police Commission is continually hearing from the defendants administration about the
manpower shortage. This agent also acknowledged and admitted that retaining the
plaintiff would go far toward addressing the police manpower shortage problem.
36. The defendant Town admitted that extending the plaintiffs employment
would not cost it any extra money.
37. After deciding to do so, the defendant Town stated that it is a reasonably
prudent move to retain the plaintiff.
38. Importantly, the defendant Town admitted that the determination to retain
the plaintiff past his sixty-fifth birthday, made by defendants Board of Police
Commissioners, is consistent with what the [defendant] Town has done in the past.
39. In no instance other than the plaintiffs, has a lawful decision of the Board on
a request to extend police service been disregarded by the defendants.
40. In no instance other than the plaintiffs, has a lawful decision of that Board
been assailed by the defendants.
41. In no instance other than the plaintiffs, has a lawful decision of that Board
been overturned by the defendants.
10
42. In no instance other than the plaintiffs, has the defendant claimed that its
Board of Selectmen, rather than the Board of Police Commissioners, has the exclusive
authority to decide whether or not to continue an employees service as a Police Officer.
43. Nevertheless, the defendants did so in the plaintiffs case, and immediately
after it was made, the defendants refused to abide by the decision of the Board of
Police Commissioners.
44. Thereafter, the defendants subjected the plaintiff to a hearing before, and
decision by defendant Board of Selectmen. In no instance other than the plaintiffs has
a Police Officer seeking extension of his service had to submit to hearing before the
defendant Board of Selectmen.
45. In no instance other than the plaintiffs has the defendant Board of
Selectmen, rather than the Board of Police Commissioners, ever made the decision
whether to continue the service of a Police Officer beyond the age of sixty-five.
46. The defendants purpose in refusing to abide by the lawful decision of the
Board to extend the plaintiffs police service and to subject him to hearing before the
defendant Board of Selectmen was to unlawfully deprive the plaintiff of his employment
for discriminatory or retaliatory purposes.
47. At the Board of Selectmen hearing, the defendant First Selectman, W. Kurt
Miller, through his statements and actions, clearly expressed his unlawful animus
11
toward the plaintiff, and demonstrated that his decision was based upon unlawful,
rather than lawful motives.
48. At that hearing, the defendant Miller publicly admitted that he perceived the
plaintiff to be a liability to the Town, despite the defendant Board of Selectmens, and
his, admitted ignorance of the plaintiffs work performance and of police personnel
decisions generally.
49. The defendant Miller publicly admitted that he was motivated by concern for
how the plaintiffs extension of service would affect younger officers on the promotion
list.
50. In fact, an officer significantly younger than the plaintiff was nearly
immediately promoted to the plaintiffs position.
51. After unlawfully refusing to abide by the decision of the Board of Police
Commissioners and unlawfully imposing upon the plaintiff a requirement to submit his
request to the defendant Board of Selectmen, the defendant Board refused to continue
the plaintiffs police service beyond the plaintiffs sixty-fifth birthday.
52. As such, the defendants terminated the plaintiffs employment on March 8,
2013, the plaintiffs sixty-fifth birthday.
53. The defendant McConologue participated in the unlawful deprivation of the
plaintiffs employment. On her own and at the urging of defendants Miller and Metzler,
McConologue acted unlawfully to pressure the Board of Police Commissioners to
12
change its decision to extend the service of the plaintiff and to subject the plaintiff to
decision, and denial, by the defendants Board of Selectman and Miller.
54. Defendant McConologue knowingly or recklessly participated in hiring
practices declared unlawful by the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission. In
violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-231(a), inter alia, defendant
McConologue unlawfully permitted the defendant Metzler to participate in the hiring
process of the plaintiffs replacement.
55. The defendant Metzler participated in the unlawful deprivation of the
plaintiffs employment. Metzler participated in pressuring the Board of Police
Commissioners to change its decision to extend the service of the plaintiff, and to
subject the plaintiff to decision, and denial, by the defendants Board of Selectman and
Miller.
56. Defendant Metzler knowingly or recklessly participated in hiring practices
declared unlawful by the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission. In violation
of Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-231(a), inter alia, defendant Metzler
unlawfully participated in the hiring process of the plaintiffs replacement.
57. The defendants refused to extend the plaintiffs service and terminated him
due to his age and in retaliation against him for the plaintiffs complaints, inter alia,
about personal mistreatment and departmental mismanagement.
13
58. The reasons given by the defendants for their unlawful actions are
pretextual. At the hearing, the defendant Miller admitted that it knew nothing about the
plaintiffs performance and police personnel decisions, as such decisions were made by
the Board of Police Commissioners.
59. For an extended period of time continuing to the date of the plaintiffs
termination, the plaintiff has been subjected to an ongoing pattern of harassment,
discrimination, hostility and disparate treatment based upon his age and in retaliation
for his complaints to and about the defendant.
60. The conduct of the defendants and defendants agents, officers or
employees has been continuous, persistent and unabated.
61. On or about January 13, 2014, the defendant Miller blocked the plaintiffs
appointment as an unpaid, volunteer Fire Investigator to the defendant Town of
Seymours Fire Marshals office. The plaintiff is fully licensed and qualified for the
position, yet defendant Miller will not appoint the plaintiff due to his discriminatory and
retaliatory animus against him.
62. The actions of the defendants therefore constitute a continuing course of
conduct.
63. As detailed herein and continuing to the date of the plaintiffs termination
and to the present, the defendants subjected the plaintiff to an ongoing pattern of
14
harassment, discrimination, hostility and disparate treatment based upon the plaintiffs
age and in retaliation for the plaintiffs complaints to and about the defendant.
64. The defendants further subjected the plaintiff to deprivation of his
constitutional rights, including equal protection, due process and freedom of speech.
65. Throughout the plaintiffs employment with the defendant as detailed herein
and continuing to date, the plaintiff was subjected to an ongoing pattern of
discrimination, harassment, retaliation and disparate treatment. The conduct was
continuous, persistent and ongoing. The conduct was based upon the plaintiffs age,
and the plaintiffs complaints to the defendants.
66. The plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies prerequisite to suit,
and has received a Release of Jurisdiction from the Connecticut Commission on
Human Rights and Opportunities and a Right to Sue Letter from the Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission.
67. In the manner described above, the defendant Town has subjected the
plaintiff to, inter alia, discrimination based upon his age.
68. In the manner described above, the actions of the defendant Town
constitute violations of the provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. 621, et seq.
69. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of
his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not
15
limited to loss of income and employment benefits; loss of employment and

employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of
mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police
Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at
large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress.
COUNT TWO
1.-66. Paragraphs 1-66 of Count One are hereby made Paragraphs 1-66 of
Count Two.
67. In the manner described above, the defendant Town has subjected the
plaintiff to, inter alia, retaliation.
68. In the manner described above, the defendant Town of Seymour has
violated the rights secured to the plaintiff by the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e.
16
COUNT THREE
Count Three.
67. For the purpose of this Count, the individual defendants are sued in their
individual capacity.
68. The aforesaid actions of individual defendants, as described herein,
constitute invidious discrimination and retaliation in violation of the plaintiff's
constitutional rights to equal protection, due process of the laws and freedom of speech
as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
COUNT FOUR
Count Four.
17
67. The defendant Miller is the highest policy setting authority on matters related
to the instant complaint, including, inter alia the hiring, training, supervision,
investigation and discipline of defendant Town personnel, including the plaintiff and all
defendants.
68. A municipal policy or custom exists in the defendant Town of Seymour as a
result of the municipality's deliberate indifference to the violation of constitutional rights.
69. The actions of the defendants as stated herein were and are approved,
sanctioned, taken upon the direction of and adopted by the defendants Miller and
Town. As such, the defendant Town has incurred liability for the actions of the
defendants.
70. The actions and conduct of the defendant Town evidence an official policy
or custom which has caused the plaintiff to be subjected to a denial of one or more of
his constitutional rights.
71. As such, the defendant Town has incurred municipal liability.
18
COUNT FIVE
Count Five.
67. The conduct of the defendant Town and its agents, officers and employees
constitute violations of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Sections 46a-60
et seq. of the Connecticut General Statutes.
COUNT SIX
Count Six.
67. The defendants have agreed and conspired to deprive the plaintiff of his
rights as stated herein.
19
68. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the defendants have taken the substantial
steps of, inter alia, refusing to recognize the validity of the plaintiffs extension of
employment as lawfully determined by the Board of Police Commissioners; unlawfully
subjecting him to determination by the defendant Board of Selectmen; and, unlawfully
permitting the defendant Metzler to participate in the hiring process.
69. In the manner described, the defendants have engaged in civil consipracy.
COUNT SEVEN
Count Seven.
67. The actions of the defendants were extreme and outrageous.
68. The actions of the defendants were intentional.
69. The actions of the defendants were likely to and did cause the plaintiff
emotional distress, and that emotional distress was severe.
20
70. The actions of the defendants constitute the intentional infliction of

emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendants as follows:

A. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to back pay, lost overtime
pay, lost vacation pay, lost seniority and other employment-related benefits; and
compensation for other economic losses, including but not limited to emotional distress,
physical illness and attorney's fees;
B. Punitive damages;
C. Costs of this action;
D. Reasonable attorney's fees;
21
E. Declaratory relief, recognizing the validity of the Board of Police

Commissions approval of the plaintiffs employment extension and immediate
restoration to his position, and restoration of all lost wages, benefits, rank, seniorty, etc.
F. Such other relief as this Court shall consider to be fair and equitable.
CLAIM FOR JURY TRIAL

The plaintiff claims trial by jury in this case.
THE PLAINTIFF
BY
/s/ William S. Palmieri

WILLIAM S. PALMIERI
Federal Bar No. ct14361
Law Offices of William S. Palmieri, L.L.C.
129 Church Street, Suite 405
New Haven, CT 06510
(203) 562-3100
(203) 909-6006 (fax)
wpalmieri@hotmail.com
His Attorney
22

Original Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Original Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE TOWN OF SEYMOUR,

JANUARY 19, 2014

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 2 of 22

of the State of Connecticut, a invoked pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction of the

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 3 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 4 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 5 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 6 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 7 of 22

On December 16, 1971, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 8 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 9 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 10 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 11 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 12 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 13 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 14 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 15 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 16 of 22

limited to loss of income and employment benefits; loss of employment and

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 17 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 18 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 19 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 20 of 22

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 21 of 22

70. The actions of the defendants constitute the intentional infliction of

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendants as follows:

Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 22 of 22

E. Declaratory relief, recognizing the validity of the Board of Police

CLAIM FOR JURY TRIAL

/s/ William S. Palmieri

You might also like