Wood v. City of Haverhill

1

SCOTT WOOD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HAVERHILL, HAVERHILL POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF WENHAM, WENHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT, KEVIN DINAPOLI, ANTHONY HAUGH, and ROBERT PISTONE, Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-12377-JEK

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

September 13, 2024

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

JULIA E. KOBICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This action concerns the termination of plaintiff Scott Wood, a former police officer, from the City of Haverhill and Town of Wenham Police Departments. Wood principally alleges that the defendants-Haverhill and Wenham, their police departments and police chiefs Kevin DiNapoli, Anthony Haugh, and Robert Pistone-improperly terminated his employment based on a faulty background investigation and report from 2013. The Haverhill and Wenham defendants have separately moved to dismiss all of the claims against them. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that Wood has plausibly alleged claims for breach of contract against Haverhill; defamation and intentional interference with advantageous business and contractual relations against Acting Chief Haugh and Chief Pistone; and invasion of privacy against Haverhill, its police department, and each of the individual defendants. The remaining claims will be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

The following facts, drawn from the complaint and documents incorporated by reference into the complaint, are presumed true for purposes of the defendants' motions to dismiss. See Parmenter v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 93 F.4th 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2024).^[1]

In April 2012, Wood applied to become an officer with the Haverhill Police Department. ECF 1, ¶ 15. As part of the hiring process, former Deputy Chief Donald Thompson conducted a background investigation into Wood and prepared a corresponding report. Id. ¶¶ 16, 19-20. The report stated that Wood had “used inappropriate words” in a 2008 instant message conversation with a former classmate and had engaged in “misconduct as an employee of Merrimack College and Regis College as well as in a class he had taken part in from the” Municipal Police Training Committee. Id. ¶ 17. Deputy Chief Thompson obtained the instant messages through an unrelated investigation into a former classmate of Wood's, but Wood was not questioned about the instant messages in 2012 and was not suspected of any criminal conduct. Id. ¶ 18. Wood denies the allegations in Thompson's background report and claims that they lack evidentiary support. Id. ¶ 17.

On May 31, 2013, the City of Haverhill and Wood entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”). Id. ¶ 19; ECF 11-1.^[2] Under its terms, Wood agreed to withdraw his application for employment with the Haverhill Police Department. ECF 1, ¶ 19; ECF 11-1. In exchange Haverhill agreed that it would: (1) dispose of all copies of the background report within one year; (2) not publish the background report to any third party or provide information about it or the background investigation to any non-essential employees during this one-year retention period; (3) not discuss any aspect of the background report or investigation “unless necessary for a specific business purpose or unless compelled to do so by a court of law”; (4) afford Wood two-weeks' notice if the City planned to produce the background report for any reason; and (5) maintain the confidentiality of the MOU and the circumstances leading to its creation “to the degree allowed for by law.” ECF 11-1; see ECF 1, ¶¶ 19-21.

That same month, in May 2013, the Wenham Police Department hired Wood as a reserve police officer. ECF 1, ¶ 22. Nearly six years later, in March 2019, Wood was hired by the Methuen Police Department and applied again to be an officer for the Haverhill Police Department. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. In October 2020, after a background investigation conducted by Alan DeNaro, then the Chief of the Haverhill Police Department, Haverhill appointed Wood as a reserve police officer, and he resigned his position in Methuen. Id. ¶¶ 26-28. Chief DeNaro offered Wood a full-time position in March 2021, after the parties agreed that Wood would attend an upcoming Bridge Academy training program to be certified as a full-time officer. Id. ¶ 29. In the meantime, on March 19, 2021, the Municipal Police Training Committee approved a waiver, requested by Chief DeNaro and Haverhill Mayor James Fiorentini, that allowed Wood to work as a full-time officer for the Haverhill Police Department until December 12, 2021, to allow time to complete the hearing, the parties confirmed that this exhibit accurately reflects the agreement, even though it excludes the signature page training program. Id. ¶ 30; ECF 11-2. Wood was sworn in as a full-time officer on April 22, 2021. ECF 1 ¶ 31.

Wood was set to begin a full-time schedule, with four days on and two days off, on May 30, 2021. Id. ¶ 32. Instead, on May 28, 2021, while Chief DeNaro was on medical leave, Wood received a call from Acting Chief Anthony Haugh, a defendant in this action, who informed Wood that he would be taken off the schedule. Id. ¶¶ 33-34. On June 4, 2021, Acting Chief Haugh told Wood that he would not be employed full-time or permitted to attend the Bridge Academy, but would instead remain a reserve officer and was required to attend a full-time police academy. Id. ¶¶ 36-38. Two weeks later, on June 18, 2021, the Deputy Chief of the Haverhill Police Department, Stephen Doherty, told Wood, without further explanation, that he needed to return his badge, gun, and other police equipment. Id. ¶ 43. The next day, Mayor Fiorentini called Wood and said, at the outset, that “he should not be calling because ‘their conversation could end in a lawsuit.'” Id. ¶ 44. The Mayor then informed Wood that “Acting Chief Haugh had come to his office with a copy of the background report that [Haverhill] agreed to destroy and threatened to go to the press,” and that the report was the reason why Wood had to return his badge and gun. Id. ¶¶ 44-45.

Some six months later, in December 2021, Wood met with the new Chief of the Haverhill Police Department and a defendant here, Robert Pistone. Id. ¶ 46. Chief Pistone stated that he thought Wood had resigned and mentioned that someone had informed the District Attorney's Office that a copy of Wood's 2013 background report existed. Id. ¶¶ 46, 48. In response, Wood showed Chief Pistone the signed MOU between him and Haverhill, which stated that the background report was confidential and should have been destroyed in 2014. Id. ¶ 48. After saying that he would speak with Haverhill's counsel, Chief Pistone told Wood that he would not have to turn over the report if Wood were to resign. Id. ¶¶ 48-49. Later that month, Wood's attorney notified the City's outside counsel that Haverhill was violating its 2013 MOU with Wood and interfering with his ability to work as a police officer. Id. ¶ 51. Haverhill subsequently terminated Wood's employment. Id. ¶ 52. Wood had not worked a single shift for the Haverhill Police Department after returning his badge and gun in June 2021. Id. ¶¶ 43, 47, 52.

Wood later learned that a Captain with the Haverhill Police Department, Megan Pare, was ordered in December 2021 to investigate Wood's “‘background discrepancy' from 2013.” Id. ¶ 54. Her report, completed in February 2022, revealed that she received Wood's 2013 background report from a retired detective named John Moses. Id. ¶ 56. Her report also discussed several of Wood's prior psychological evaluations, detailed the contents of the 2013 background report, and attached Wood's 2008 instant messages as an exhibit. Id. ¶¶ 56-58. Counsel for Wood requested Wood's personnel file in September 2022 and discovered that it contained Captain Pare's report, including the 2013 material. Id. ¶¶ 61-62. Haverhill's counsel later acknowledged that Wood was terminated from the Haverhill Police Department because of Captain Pare's report. Id. ¶ 59.

In December 2022, Wood met with the Chief of the Wenham Police Department and a defendant here, Kevin DiNapoli, who told Wood that he would be placed on administrative leave from his position as a reserve officer in Wenham and requested that Wood return his badge and gun. Id. ¶¶ 63-64. Chief DiNapoli explained that Wood had not violated any departmental policy, but that another law enforcement agency had contacted the District Attorney's Office with information from Wood's 2013 background report. Id. ¶¶ 64-65. Soon after Wood retained counsel, Wenham informed Wood's attorney that his employment would be terminated, and that he could appeal the decision to the Town Selectboard. Id. ¶¶ 68, 70. In January 2023, Wood received a notice stating that he was formally being placed under an Internal Affairs investigation by the Wenham Police Department. Id. ¶¶ 69, 71.

In June 2023, the Wenham Police Department decided not to renew Wood's contract because of the claims from Haverhill and the Internal Affairs investigation. Id. ¶ 72. Wenham did not afford Wood the opportunity to appeal his termination to the Town Selectboard. Id. ¶ 73. Wenham also publicly disclosed purportedly untrue details of the 2013 background report to the Boston Globe. Id. ¶¶ 77-78. Wood later learned that he had been placed on the “Brady List”^[3] in December 2022 because of Haverhill or Wenham's disclosure of his 2013 background report to the District Attorney's Office. Id. ¶ 74.

Wood filed this action against the City of Haverhill, its police department, Acting Chief Haugh, and Chief Pistone (together the “Haverhill defendants”), as well as the Town of Wenham, its police department, and Chief DiNapoli (together, the “Wenham defendants”) in October 2023. ECF 1. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract against the Haverhill defendants (Count I);...