UNITED STATES DTSTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
WENDE-LL HARP and 1
ARCHITECTS ENVt`RON`M`E`N`T.AL :
COLLABORATTVE INTERNATTONAL, RC.? :
; CASE NO: 3;03CVQ77'{CF§)
Fiaintitfs, :
v. ;
3'OTTN DeSTEi*`ANO, :
CTTY OF NEW HAVEN and :
NEW HAVEN BO/TRB OF EBTECATTON, :
Defendants.
: June 2] , 2007
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND NOTICE OF SU`PPLElVIENTAL AUTHORITIES EN
SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
Defendants, Iebrz YDeStefa1ie, City et New Haven and New Haven Beard ef Education,
itereby wish te bring te the Ceurtks attention supplemental atrtherities, net cited in their brief,
which stippeit tbeir pesitien that Betetidaiit DeStetane, as a rnatter et iaw, is net liable urider Qi
@83 because, netwitnstand.ie.g any aiieged retaliatery reetivatieri that he is claimed te liave trad,
be did net cause the terrninatieit et` Architects Envirerireeiitai Ceiiaberative tnternatienal, i’.C.’e
eeritractr it were the Beard et Edeeatieri, the tinel deeieiert rnaker, rather tbari DeSteiarie, ·wbicb
ter1iniria.ted the centraet, See i}et`endaitte†it/ternereitcitiin ie Stippert etit/ietiee ter Stieriiiargs
jtttdgitierit, at 33-et}? Deteitdaittsi Rept;-t Mernerandnrn at TF-?. Tfbese sttepienieiitai aetiier.ities arise
etippert i}et"eridarits’ argument that tire Eeard and the City are raise net liabier becettse tire
evidence is ttncentradieted that the rnernbers whe veted te tenriiriate tbe centract, net ceetrtirig
i)eStei'aiier were either iter aware ei Fiairititt" tiarpe wires peiiticat siippert et`BeSte.tCaneie
epeenent aridfer bed eeretieeible, ceiietittitieiial rrietivee ter their actiene. Tbeee etitberities are as
teliewez
Case 3:03-cv-00977-CFD Document 95 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 4
E. Beattie v. Madison. County Sch. Dist., 254 ?.3d 595 (Sth Cir. 200])
in , the piaintifif a secretary for a schooi district, clairned that she had heen fired
hy the school district in retaiiation tor her stippert of a candidate fer school sttperintendent who
was running in cppesition to the incanihent saperintendent. §. at 599. The piaintitif sued the
schcoi district, the sttperinte·nde·nt, the principal, and the schooi hoard niernhers for vioiation ef
her first ainendinent rights under § 1983. id, Although plaintifts’ priricipai originaiiy had
reconirnended that she he reernpieyed, within days after the piaintiff had voiced her suppoit for
the superintendents opponent, which the principai. reprimanded her for, and several days after
the plaintiff pat up yard si gns supporting the opponent, the principal recommended to the
incumbent superintendent that the plaintiff he tired. id. at 599-600. Thereafter, the incumbent
superintendent presented the principal’s recommendation to the Board of Education, which voted
to fire the piaintit`f._Z;d,. at 600.
in affirming the grant of snrnrnary judgment to the principai and the superintendent, the
Fifth Circuit hetd that the principai and the superintendent, no rnatter how unconstitntioiial their
rnetives were and despite the fact that they had rnade the recernineiidatieii tc the Board to
tenninate the piaintifi ccaid not he iiahie to the piaintifil hecause the Board ef Ediicatien had
made the tina?. decisien. te hre the plaiiitift §. at #603, t505. the iiifth Circuit aiso held that the
Board was net iiahie, hecatise their affidavits indicated that they did not itnew ef the piaintitfs
protected activity and that they had iegitirnate nondiscriniiriatory reasons fer their votes te
terminate the piaintiff id, at 603-05. Farther, the Cc art heid that under the li/it. irieaithy City Sch.
Dist. Bd. ofiidtic-. tt. Det/le, @9 US. 27d, 287 @977}, hecatise the Beard rnernhers stated in
their atiidaisits that they veeaid have terniinated the plaintiff even withctit the recernrnendaticn et?
9t£"F5Z?’@2,d.ec 2
Case 3:03-cv-00977-CFD Document 95 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 4
the principai, the Board was not iiable. Ld. at 605. All of these circumstances are present in the
instant action.
2. Johnson v. State, 369 F.3d 826 {Sm Cir. 2GO4)
in iohnson, the Fifth Circuit reversed a jriry verdict in favor of a terminated e.nrpi.eyee in
a iirst amendment retaiiation case. tid. at 833. The employee had sued his supervisor, the Deputy
Secretary of the Department in which the piaintiff had worked, two coworkers, and an inteniai
affairs investiggator. id. at 823. in reversing the verdict as to all of the defendants except the
Deputy Secretary, who had tired Johnson, the Fifth Circuit wrote, "As to causation, oniy tina?.
decision—make·rs may be held liable for First Amendment retaiiation employment discrimination
under § t983.°’ Ld. at 83l.
Respectfully submitted,
BEFENDANTS,
3 DESTEFANO, CiTY OF NEW
HAVEN and NEW HAVEN BGARB OF
EEUCATEON
By: sgi rtrofyn W Kane
Caroiyn W. Kone ·(ct€}6Z2;07}
Roxvena A. Moffett {ctl 98i i}
§REl\iN`§R, SAL-TZMAN & WALLMAN Li.?
their Attorneys
EF1 `Wiiitney Avenue
l\Eevv Haven, C? @65ii
iiel. (203} 772-Eetltl
hax {2%) '772—4008
Emaii: ei
€it$?5?€}2.doc E
Case 3:03-cv-00977-CFD Document 95 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that op Imc 2I, 2007, a copy of the foregoing was Sled eIec$:
semi by e»~maiI to all pamées by operation of the Coarfs electronic filing system [or by mail to
anyone upable Io accept eiecixomc Iilisagl.
sgi arofyzz W Kama
Carolyn W. Kone
@28’?§?’§;.7E,aae ai
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms