DiFronzo v. City of Somerville

1

DANTE A. DIFRONZO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SOMERVILLE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-10867-FDS

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

August 28, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

F Dennis Saylor IV, Chief Judge, United States District Court

This is a civil action brought by a former police detective for alleged violations of his constitutional rights and for various state-law claims. Plaintiff Dante DiFronzo has filed suit against the City of Somerville, former mayor Joseph Curtatone, former chief of police David Fallon, and former police captain Bernard Cotter, alleging that they unlawfully retaliated against him for engaging in protected conduct. Specifically, he contends that he was wrongfully terminated by defendants for filing complaints with Curtatone and the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office concerning corruption in the police department.

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

The following facts are undisputed except as noted.^[1]

A. Factual Background

Dante DiFronzo previously served as a detective in the Somerville Police Department (“SPD”). (Compl. at 1).

The City of Somerville is a municipality duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (See id. ¶ 2).

Joseph Curtatone was formerly the City's mayor, David Fallon was the SPD's chief of police, and Bernard Cotter was a captain in the SPD. (Id. ¶¶ 3-5).^[2]

On September 29, 2016, the City placed DiFronzo, then a detective with the SPD, on paid administrative leave subject to an investigation by the Middlesex District Attorney's Office and the SPD into an incident involving a 2015 home invasion. (Docket No. 48 at 1; Docket No. 422).

In March 2017, the District Attorney's Office issued a witness disclosure notice (“the Brady letter”) concerning DiFronzo.^[3]The letter stated the following:

Now comes the Commonwealth pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 14 and hereby notifies the defendant of potentially exculpatory information. During the course of an investigation into a home invasion, we learned the following facts. On February 28, 2015, Somerville Police Detective Dante DiFronzo spoke with a confidential informant (“Cl”). The CI told Det. DiFronzo that an individual (“the Individual”) had recently stolen marijuana from him. Detective DiFronzo knew that the CI had a violent criminal past and that the CI was looking for the Individual. The CI told Det. DiFronzo that he intended to harm the Individual.

Detective DiFronzo, with this knowledge, actively assisted the CI in locating the Individual by providing information to the CI regarding the Individual's whereabouts. After receiving this information from Det. DiFronzo, the CI participated in a home invasion on March 2, 2015, in which the Individual was stabbed multiple times with a machete requiring hospitalization and surgeries.

The Commonwealth is also aware that Detective DiFronzo knowingly made material omissions in police reports that were submitted in connection with the investigation of the home invasion.

(Docket No. 42-3 at 15-16).^[4]

On May 31, 2017, Fallon, who at that time was the SPD's chief of police, suspended DiFronzo for five days and recommended his termination. (Id. at 2-4). DiFronzo remained on paid administrative leave pending a hearing before Mayor Curtatone, the appointing authority. (Docket No. 48 at 6).

On June 1, 2017, Curtatone delegated his authority to act as the hearing officer in DiFronzo's disciplinary matter to attorney Peter Berry. (Id. at 9).

On October 26, 2017, before any hearings had occurred, DiFronzo wrote a letter to Curtatone complaining about issues of corruption within the SPD. (Docket No. 42-8 at 2-5).^[5]

On November 7, 2017, Fallon responded to that letter, writing in relevant part:

I remind you that the investigation is confidential at this time. Making public statements about the investigation at this time, including disparaging comments and/or allegations about the investigator or other officers, is a violation of Department policies and procedures. Further, going outside of the investigation directly to the Appointing Authority is a violation of the investigatory process. If, as a result of the investigation, there is a need for an Appointing Authority hearing, that would be the time and the forum in which you can provide anything that you claim is a defense to any charges against you.

(Docket No. 42-9 at 3).

On November 27, 2017, DiFronzo wrote a second letter to Curtatone, in which he again raised perceived issues of public corruption and expressed his intention to contact the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. (Docket No. 42-10 at 2-3).^[6]

The City's investigation report, which was authored by Cotter, was completed on December 21, 2017, before any appointment-authority hearings. (Docket No. 42-5).^[7] In it, Cotter wrote that he had found “evidentiary support for each of the factual findings made by the District Attorney's Office as set forth [in its Brady letter].” (Id. at 2).

On January 2, 2018, the City amended the administrative charges to incorporate the findings of the investigation report. (Docket No. 42-6 at 2-6).

A full disciplinary hearing-occurring on four separate dates from February through April 2018-was then held in open session. (Docket No. 48 at 9-10). DiFronzo was represented by counsel of his choosing and permitted to present his own witnesses and evidence, crossexamine witnesses, and testify-which he declined to do-in his own defense. (Id. at 10).^[8]

Berry, the hearing officer, thereafter issued a civil-service decision pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 41. (Docket No. 42-4). He concluded that “just cause exists to sustain Chief Fallon's decision to suspend Det. DiFronzo for five days,” and that “just cause exists for the Mayor to impose further discipline on Det. DiFronzo, up to and including terminating [his] employment as a Somerville Police Officer.” (Id. at 44). There is no evidence that Berry consulted Curtatone before making that decision. (Docket No. 48 at 13).

On May 8, 2018, Curtatone adopted Berry's findings of fact and conclusions of law in whole. (Docket No. 42-7). As a result, DiFronzo was discharged. (Id.).

Two days later, the Boston Globe published an article titled, “Detective Accused of Aiding Drug Dealer No Longer on Somerville Force.” (Docket No. 42-16). The article attributed the following statement to Curtatone:

“The residents of Somerville must have confidence that the sworn men and women of the Somerville Police Department will not only protect public safety but also discharge their duties with the utmost integrity,” Curtatone said in a statement. “As mayor, I have a duty to maintain that excellence by holding accountable officers who violate the department's standards of conduct.”

(Id. at 3).

DiFronzo was notified of his right to appeal the discharge decision to the Civil Service Commission. (Docket No. 48 at 13). He did not appeal. (Id.).

Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Somerville Police Employees Association, DiFronzo's disciplinary matter, including the issue of whether there was sufficient cause to terminate, was arbitrated from October 2018 through October 2020. (Id. at 14; Docket No. 42-1 at 2).

As of the date the complaint was filed, the arbitrator's decision remained pending.

B. Procedural Background

On March 26, 2021, DiFronzo filed the complaint in this action in Massachusetts state court. Defendants thereafter removed the action to this court.

The complaint alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 1), for tortious interference with contractual and advantageous business relationships (Counts 2 and 3), for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Counts 4 and 6), for wrongful termination (Count 5), and for defamation and slander (Count 7).

Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all claims.

II. Standard of Review

The role of summary judgment is “to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 822 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 1990)). Summary judgment shall be granted when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine issue is “one that must be decided at trial because the evidence, viewed in the light most flattering to the nonmovant, would permit a rational factfinder to resolve the issue in favor of either party.” Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). In evaluating a summary judgment motion, the court indulges all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See O'Connor v. Steeves, 994 F.2d 905, 907 (1st Cir. 1993). When “a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the adverse party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quotations omitted). The nonmoving party may not simply “rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading,” but instead must “present affirmative evidence.” Id. at 256-57.

III. Analysis

A. Section 1983 Claim (Count 1)

Count 1 asserts a claim under Section 1983 against Curtatone, Fallon and Cotter for “depriving [p]laintiff of his rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution not to be deprived of freedom of speech, and/or liberty or property...