Blue v. City of New Haven

MENDI BLUE Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN Defendant.

No. 3:16-cv-1411 (MPS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

January 31, 2019

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, Mendi Blue ("Ms. Blue"), filed this action challenging a decision by the City of New Haven ("the City") to terminate her employment as New Haven's Director of Development and Policy. In the operative complaint, Ms. Blue alleges retaliation in violation of Connecticut's "whistleblower" protection statute, violation of her federal and state free speech rights, breach of contract, and discrimination on the basis of race and color. ECF No. 43. The City has moved for summary judgment on all counts. ECF No. 77. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the federal free speech and breach of contract claims, and DENIED as to the retaliation, state free speech, and racial discrimination claims.

I. Facts

The following facts, which are taken from the parties' Local Rule 56(a) statements and supporting exhibits, are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.¹

A. Ms. Blue's Appointment to the Office of Development and Policy

Ms. Blue volunteered on Mayor Harp's mayoral campaign. ECF No. 79-1 at ¶ 2. After Mayor Harp was elected, she hired Ms. Blue to be New Haven's Director of Labor Relations on January 1, 2014. Id. at ¶ 3. A few months later, in May 2014, Mayor Harp appointed Ms. Blue to a newly-created position: Director of Office of Development and Policy ("ODP"). Id. at ¶ 7. The appointment was made pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Revised City Charter, id., which provides that "[t]he Mayor shall appoint a secretary to the Mayor and other employees in the Office of the Mayor, who shall serve under the direction of and subject to removal at the pleasure of the Mayor, id. at ¶ 4.

The Board of Alders ("BOA") is the legislative body of the City of New Haven, id. at ¶ 8, and voted to fund the ODP Director position, id. at ¶ 9. In approving the position, the BOA adopted an ordinance requiring the ODP Director to provide quarterly reports to the BOA regarding the City's progress in securing grant funding. Id. at ¶ 10. As ODP Director, Ms. Blue was also responsible for identifying, coordinating, and applying for grants. Id. at ¶ 11. In the course of this job, she was expected to work in partnership with the Mayor and department heads. Id.

Ms. Blue received a copy of the Employee Handbook and City policies at a new hire orientation held sometime within her first three months on the job. Id. at ¶ 5. The Employee Handbook's "disciplinary process" provision includes the following language:

Normally, discipline will be administered in accordance with the principles of progressive discipline. Progressive discipline provides for increasingly serious disciplinary measures. However, the severity of any disciplinary action is dependent upon the nature of the offense.

In some situations, employee behavior is so serious that immediate termination is warranted. If the City's investigation of the situation reveals that the employee committedwhat it determines to be a serious offense, then termination without progressive discipline may be required.

Id. at ¶ 6.

B. Ms. Okafor's Alleged Use of Unbid Grant Writing Services

Mayor Harp hired Martha Okafor ("Ms. Okafor") as the Community Services Administrator on May 28, 2014. Id. at ¶ 12. As the head of the community services administration, Ms. Okafor assumed the responsibility of trying to generate additional resources for her office. Id. at ¶ 13. On June 3, 2014, Mayor Harp sent a memo to all coordinators and department heads, requesting that they inform ODP (Ms. Blue's department) of all grant seeking, proposal writing, and fundraising-related activities within their departments." Id. at ¶ 14.² Shortly after she was hired, Ms. Okafor began contracting with Farnam Associates ("Farnam"), an outside consultant, for grant writing services. Id. at ¶ 16. Ms. Okafor was required to follow the procedures set forth in Article XV, § 1 (C) of the Revised City Charter when working with outside consultants. The relevant provision of the charter states:

Whenever any work is necessary to be done, or any supply is needed, and the several parts of said work or supply shall together involve the expenditure of more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or such other amount established by the Board of Alders by Ordinance, such work shall be done or supply acquired pursuant to written contract, under such regulations as the Board of Alders may establish by Ordinance. All such contracts shall be founded on sealed bids or proposals made in compliance with Public Notice published at least ten (10) Days before the time fixed for opening said bids or proposals. If the Purchasing Agent shall not deem it for the interest of the City to reject all bids, the Purchasing Agent shall award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder.

Id. at ¶ 19.

Ms. Blue became aware that Ms. Okafor was outsourcing grant writing services to Farnam without putting the work out to bid. Id. at ¶ 17. She soon began expressing concern toMayor Harp, and others in the administration, that Ms. Okafor was awarding grant writing contracts without going through the bidding process required by the City Charter. Id. at ¶ 18. Ms. Okafor was advised that she needed to work with the purchasing office to issue requests for proposals when utilizing outside consultants. Id. at ¶ 24. In addition, the purchasing agent held a training session for everyone in the City who had occasion to utilize outside contractors. Id. The parties disagree whether Ms. Okafor began to follow the procedures in 2016. Id. at ¶ 26. The City states that by the beginning of 2016, Ms. Okafor only retained Farnam's services after putting a work request out to bid, while Ms. Blue states that Ms. Okafor was still retaining Farnam without following the proper procedures. Id. Specifically, Ms. Blue states that a contract between the City and Farnam was executed retroactively on February 18, 2016 with an effective date of January 1, 2016, and that Farnam had been selected and had begun work before the contract was put out to bid. Id.

C. The Budget Dispute, BOA Meeting, and Memorandum

The City states that Mayor Harp issued a directive to her department heads and coordinators informing them that when she submits a proposed budget to the BOA, the time for lobbying in favor of a particular department is over, and they must support the budget before the BOA. Id. at ¶ 34. Ms. Blue states that the directive was not articulated "in an effective and official manner" and that that the only clear statement of this policy came in writing after her termination. Id. In any case, the City states that Ms. Blue knew that the Mayor expected all of her directors to support the budget once it was presented to the BOA. Id. at ¶ 38. While Ms. Blue testified that she generally knew about this policy, she also stated that the policy had not always been followed in the past. Id.

In January 2016, Ms. Blue spoke with Mayor Harp about adding two new positions for the Office of Development and Policy to the proposed budget. Id. at ¶ 27. On March 29, 2016, however, shortly before Ms. Blue was scheduled to speak to the BOA Finance Committee, she was informed that those two positions were not in the Mayor's budget. Id. at ¶ 28. At the meeting, the Alders questioned Ms. Blue about grants she had worked on and the money her office brought into the City. Id. at ¶ 29. The next day, Ms. Okafor testified before the BOA Finance Committee and was asked "how grants work in the city in its entirety." Id. at ¶ 30-31. Ms. Blue was not present during Ms. Okafor's testimony, but she listened to a recording of it and felt that it was her responsibility to respond to the BOA's inquiry. Id. at ¶ 31.

On April 7, 2016, Ms. Blue submitted an 11-page memo to the BOA. Id. at ¶ 32. In the memo, she requested funding for two new positions in her office, stating that "[t]hough these positions were not included in the proposed 2016-17 budget, I appeal to this Committee to fund these positions." Id. at ¶ 33. At the time she submitted this memo, she knew that the two positions were not in the Mayor's budget. Id. at ¶ 37. The memo also reported Ms. Okafor's practice of awarding grant writing contracts without a bidding process in violation of city rules. See, e.g., Defendant's Ex. R at 5 (calling attention to Ms. Okafor's "violation of every city policy (formal or informal) related to the production of grants.").

D. Ms. Blue's Termination

After submitting the memo, Ms. Blue was out of the office for almost two weeks, first attending a conference and then on vacation. ECF No. 79-1 at ¶ 41. A few days after returning to the office, Ms. Blue was terminated. Id. at ¶ 42 & 47. At the termination meeting, Mayor Harp read from a script. Id. at ¶ 43; Defendant's Ex. U. Mayor Harp stated that Ms. Blue had violated her trust, and that she had caused her embarrassment. Id. at ¶ 44. She further indicated that if Ms.Blue had wanted to advocate for new positions, the time to do so was before the budget was submitted, and the request for new positions was a deliberate violation of the directive to speak with one voice. Id. She also stated that Ms. Blue had disrupted the operations of her office and the budget process. Id. The parties agree that Mayor Harp terminated Ms. Blue's employment for violating her trust and for "deliberately disobeying a directive that disrupted the operations of her office and the budget process." Id. at ¶ 47.

The City states that Mayor Harp did not indicate, at any point, that she was upset that Ms. Blue had complained about Ms. Okafor. Id. at ¶ 45. Ms. Blue testified that she could not recall exactly what the Mayor said she was upset about at the termination meeting. Id.

II. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to...