Santiago v. City of Vineland

Page 512

107 F.Supp.2d 512

Luis A. SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VINELAND, et al., Defendants.

No. 97-5110.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

August 2, 2000.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

F. Michael Daily, Jr., Quinlan, Dunne & Daily, P.A., Merchantville, NJ, for Plaintiff, Luis A. Santiago.

Lars S. Hyberg, McAllister, Hyberg & White, P.C. Executive Plaza-Suite, Northfield, NJ, for Defendants, City of Vineland, Joseph Romano and John P. Gallo.

A. Michael Barker, Joseph M. Scott, A. Michael Barker & Associates, P.C.,Northfield, NJ, for Defendants, Mario Brunetta, Paul Letizia, John Fresne and Dennis D'Augostine.

OPINION

ORLOFSKY, District Judge.

Table of Contents
  I. BACKGROUND ......................................................................520
 II. LEGAL STANDARD GOVERNING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY
      JUDGMENT .......................................................................526
III. DISCUSSION ......................................................................527
     A. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies: Title VII ........................527
     B. Santiago's Discrimination Claims on Grounds of Race, Disability and
          Retaliation ................................................................529
        1. Race Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and the
             New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD") .........................531
           a. The Prima Facie Case Analysis: Was Santiago "Qualified?" ...............532
           b. The Defendants' Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reasons ..................533
           c. Pretext for Discrimination .............................................534
                i. The Narcotics Allegations .........................................534
               ii. New Jersey's Rule of Three ........................................536
              iii. Robert Carr .......................................................537
               iv. The Negative Recommendation .......................................537
           d. Liability of the Defendants ............................................538
                i. Race Discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and
                   1983 ..............................................................538
                  (a) The City of Vineland ...........................................538
                  (b) The Individual Defendants ......................................540
                  (c) Defendants Romano and Gallo ....................................542
               ii. Race Discrimination in violation of the NJLAD .....................543
           e. Qualified Immunity .....................................................545
        2. Disability Discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act
             and Handicap Discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against
             Discrimination ("NJLAD") ...........................................546
        3. Retaliation ......................................................550
           a. Individual Defendants Brunetta, Frense, Letizia and D'Augostine ........551

           b. The City of Vineland and Individual Defendants Romano and
                Gallo ................................................................552
     C. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981A, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 ..........................554
        1. Violation of Due Process of Law ...........................................554
           a. The Alleged Failure to Provide a PreDeprivation Hearing ................554
           b. Municipal and Individual Liability .....................................557
           c. Qualified Immunity .....................................................559
        2. Conspiracy, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1) ...............................559
        3. Remaining Claims ..........................................................560
     D. False Arrest .................................................................560
     E. Malicious Prosecution ........................................................565
     F. Common Law Breach of Contract and Intentional Interference with
          Contractual Relationship ...................................................566
     G. The Tort of "Outrage" ........................................................568
     H. Santiago's Claims for Punitive Damages .......................................568
        1. The City of Vineland ......................................................569
        2. The Individual Defendants .................................................569
IV. CONCLUSION .......................................................................570

In this employment discrimination suit, this Court is called upon to determine, among other things, whether undesirable personality traits constitute an "impairment" under the Americans with Disabilities Act and whether a municipal special law enforcement officer who, by State statute, can be discharged only "for cause after an adequate hearing" is entitled to a pre-termination hearing when he is accused of selling illegal drugs at some point in the past. Plaintiff Luis A. Santiago ("Santiago"), a former special law enforcement officer of the City of Vineland, has filed an Amended Complaint alleging that the City, its former mayor and various police officials violated his federal and constitutional rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Counts One and Six), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12111, et seq. (Counts Four and Six), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 (Count Three). See Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 43-46, 51-61, 65-67. In addition, Santiago alleges discrimination and retaliation claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq. (Counts Two, Four and Six), as well as the common law claims of false arrest (Count Five), malicious prosecution (Count Five), breach of contract (Count Seven), intentional interference with his contractual relationship (Count Eight), and the tort of "outrage" (Count Nine). See id. at ¶¶ 47-50, 56-74.

Before this Court are two motions for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), filed by the two sets of defendants in this case, the City of Vineland, Joseph Romano and John P. Gallo and by Mario Brunetta, Paul Letizia, John Fresne and Dennis D'Augostine (collectively, "Defendants"). See Notice of Motion for Summ. J. by Defs., City of Vineland, Joseph Romano and John P. Gallo at 1 (filed Aug. 6, 1999); Notice of Motion for Summ. J. by Defs., Mario Brunetta, Paul Letizia, John Fresne and Sennis [sic] D'Augostine at 1 (filed Aug. 6, 1999). Because both motions for summary judgment rely on substantially similar grounds, and because Santiago has submitted only one brief in opposition to the motions for summary judgment, I shall consider the merits of the motions jointly, where appropriate. This Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,¹ 1343,² and 1367.³ For the reasons set forth below, I shall grant in part and deny in part the Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

The issues in this case are presented within the framework of three overarching factual events: (1) Santiago's discharge from his position as a Vineland special law enforcement officer; (2) the City of Vineland's failure to hire Santiago as a police officer; and (3) Santiago's subsequent arrest for unlawful possession of a weapon, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) (West Supp.2000).

On September 3, 1992, Plaintiff, Luis A. Santiago, who is Hispanic, applied for the position of special law enforcement officer in the City of Vineland. See Pl.'s App. to Br. in Opp. to Motion for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Ex.") Vol. I (Vineland Special Police Applicant Investigation) at 1. As part of the application process, Dr. Donald Babcock of the Vineland Guidance Center evaluated Santiago, found him "psychologically fit," and recommended him for the position. See App. to Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. by Defs. City of Vineland, Joseph Romano and John P. Gallo ("Defs.' Ex.") 2 at 7 (referencing Jan. 18, 1993 Babcock evaluation). On April 26, 1993, Luis A. Santiago was appointed as a special law enforcement officer of the City of Vineland. See Pl.'s Ex. Vol. I (Oath of Office, dated April 26, 1993). The post is for a term not to exceed one year and the appointment "may be revoked by the local unit for cause after adequate hearing." N.J.S.A. 40A:14-146.13 (West 1993). Santiago was reappointed to the position three separate times. See Pl.'s Ex. Vol. 1 (Oaths of Office, dated April 25, 1994, May 22, 1995, and Jan. 29.1996).

During his tenure as a special law enforcement officer, Santiago applied for a position with the Cumberland County Sheriff's Department, for which he underwent another psychological evaluation with Dr. Babcock. See Defs.' Ex. 32 at 1. On July 20, 1995, Dr. Babcock reported his psychological evaluation of Santiago, which included the following:

Mr. Santiago was married in June[,] 1992 and separated in May, 1994. He claims financial and communication problems in the marriage which had minor domestic violence. He denied hitting but admitted grabbing. He felt she also had a temper. There will not be a reconciliation. There have been reports that he is physically abusive to his wife.

Id. at 2. In addition, Dr. Babcock reported that:

[T]here is a real disturbing influence in his emotions at this time. This report compared with an earlier one conducted with him when he was applying for a position in January[,] 1993 as a Class I officer for the Vineland Police Department —comparing the two results it can be seen that the break up of the marriage and perhaps other factors have contributed to a real...