Apatow v. Town of Stratford

651 F.Supp.3d 573

Michael APATOW, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF STRATFORD, Robert McGrath, Ronald Ing, and Laura Hoydick, Defendants.

CIVIL CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01692 (JCH)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

Signed January 6, 2023

William Sylvester Palmieri, Law Offices of William S. Palmieri, LLC, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiff.

Raymond J. Rigat, Richard J. Buturla, Warren L. Holcomb, Berchem Moses PC, Milford, CT, for Defendants.

RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Janet C. Hall, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michael Apatow ("Apatow") brings this action under section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code ("Section 1983"); the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"); as well as Connecticut state law against Town of Stratford ("Stratford"), Robert McGrath ("McGrath"), Ronald Ing ("Ing"), and Laura Hoydick ("Hoydick"). Apatow alleges violations of his rights arising from his formal complaints about, and termination from, the Stratford Fire Department ("SFD").

Before this court is the defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Mot. to Dismiss") (Doc. No. 13), which the plaintiff opposes. Plaintiff's Opposition ("Pl.'s Opp'n") (Doc. No. 21). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is granted.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background¹

For thirteen years, Apatow served as a firefighter with the SFD. Compl. ¶ 11. His tenure was marked by hazardous rescues, unit citations, and other recognitions. Id. at ¶ 12. However, Apatow's time with the SFD was also marred by epithets from his fellow firefighters in reference to his girlfriend's Black son as well as a working environment that was generally "exceedingly hostile and intimidating." Id. at ¶¶ 16, 29. Heated arguments were a regular occurrence in the firehouse, and these disagreements were known to escalate to violence. Id. ¶¶ 17, 24.

On one occasion, a colleague threw a wooden cutting board in a "frisbee-like" manner at the plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 25. Apatow attempted to file a written complaint about the incident, but it was refused by the Assistant Chief, who directed him instead to "go out back and fight, fight it out." Id. at ¶ 26. The firefighter who flung the cutting board at Apatow faced no disciplinary action, and supervisors at the SFD took "no steps" to ameliorate the hostility among the firefighters. Id. at ¶ 27. The state of the work environment induced Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") and cardiac distress for Apatow, id. at ¶ 30, but his complaints noting this toll on his body only resulted in increased scrutiny by his supervisors. Id. at ¶ 31.

The situation with Apatow's colleagues came to a head when a fellow firefighter "hid essential components of the plaintiff's fire safety gear." Id. at ¶ 33. While tensions were high, another firefighter intervened and cornered Apatow. Id. This intimidation "forc[ed Apatow]" to defend himself. Id. Following the incident, Apatow was terminated on December 20, 2018. Id. at ¶¶ 32-33. Although there were at least three prior altercations among SFD firefighters that led to physical injury and property damage, id. at ¶¶ 37-38, this was the first time a firefighter was terminated for his involvement in such an incident, id. at ¶ 35. Beyond the disciplinary action, the defendants—including McGrath, the Chief of the SFD; Ing, the Human Resources Director for Stratford; and Hoydick, the Mayor of Stratford—reported the altercation to the police, leading to Apatow's arrest and prosecution. Id. at ¶ 39.

B. Procedural Background

Apatow filed his Complaint against the defendants on December 20, 2021. See Compl. He brings five Counts, alleging hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation, in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq., as amended; the RA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794 et seq.; and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Apatow asserts violation of his equal protection and due process rights in Count One against each of the defendants. In Count Two, which he brings against Stratford, he alleges that the Town's actions constitute wrongful termination in violation of public policy under Connecticut state law. Count Three, also brought against Stratford, alleges municipal liability for the constitutional violations asserted in Count One. Count Four, like Count One, asserts violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq., as amended, and RA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794. et seq., but Apatow alleges that Stratford is liable as opposed to the individual defendants. Count Five alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress against all the defendants under Connecticut state law.

In response, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all counts on the grounds that Apatow failed to state a claim for relief that is facially plausible. See Mot. to Dismiss; Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Defs.' Mem.") (Doc. No. 13-1). The plaintiff opposes this Motion. See Plaintiff's Opposition ("Pl.'s Opp.") (Doc. No. 21); Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Mem.") (Doc. No. 21-1).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

To withstand a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. Reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court liberally construes the claims, accepts the factual allegations in a complaint as true, and draws all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. See La Liberte v. Reid, 966 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2020). However, the court does not credit legal conclusions or "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Rather, "[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (internal citations omitted).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Official Capacity Claims

Apatow raises claims in Counts One and Five against the Town of Stratford as well as McGrath, Ing, and Hoydick in their individual and official capacities. The defendants move to dismiss all claims against McGrath, Ing, and Hoydick in their official capacities as duplicative of the claims brought against the Town of Stratford. Defs.' Mem. 1, 23. In his Memorandum in Opposition, Apatow fails to address defendants' argument on this issue.

Official-capacity suits are only "one way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent." Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). "As long as the government entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity." Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); see also Reynolds v. Giuliani, 506 F.3d 183, 191 (2d Cir. 2007) ("An official capacity suit against a public servant is treated as one against the governmental entity itself.").

"Within the Second Circuit, where a plaintiff names both the municipal entity and an official in his or her official capacity, district courts have consistently dismissed the official capacity claims as redundant." Phillips v. County of Orange, 894 F. Supp. 2d 345, 384 n.35 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (collecting cases); see also Jones v. Sansom, 2022 WL 972445, at *9-10 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2022) (dismissing Equal Protection and Due Process claims against individuals in their official capacity as redundant to the claims against the city); Mr. Quinn v. Gould, 2020 WL 1234553, at *5 (D. Conn. Mar. 13, 2020) (dismissing claims against a police chief in his official capacity as "duplicative of the claims against the City"); Olschafskie v. Town of Enfield, 2015 WL 9239742, at *1 (D. Conn. Dec. 17, 2015) (determining that where a plaintiff brings "municipal liability claims against the Town under both federal and state law, the official capacity claims against the individual officers are redundant.").

The only claims Apatow brings against the individual defendants in their official capacity are also brought against the Town of Stratford. As such, they are redundant, and it is unnecessary to sue McGrath, Ing, and Hoydick in their official capacities. Moreover, dismissing the official capacity claims does not limit Apatow's recovery because he does not seek injunctive relief. Compl. at 13.

Accordingly, the claims against McGrath, Ing, and Hoydick in their official capacity in Counts One and Five are dismissed.

B. Individual Capacity Claims Against Ing and Hoydick

Though Apatow asserts claims against Ing and Hoydick in their individual capacity in Counts One and Five, there is only one allegation in the Complaint that specifically addresses their conduct. Compl. ¶ 41. In particular, Apatow avers that "defendants McGrath, Ing and Hoydick demanded the arrest and investigatio [sic] of the plaintiff and orchestrated and participated in the unlawful termination of the plaintiff." Id. Beyond this conclusory statement, there are no supporting allegations outlining any involvement by Ing and Hoydick. Indeed, the other allegations refer simply to "the defendants" without further clarification. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 18, 28-30, 39. These vague allegations fall short of meeting Iqbal's requirements. Even though the court must accept all factual allegations in the Complaint as true, there is insufficient factual allegations to plausibly suggest Ing and Hoydick violated Apatow's constitutional rights or intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Thus, the...