Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CYNTHIA ANGER
Plaintiff,
VS.
Civil Action No.
JAMES L. RICHETELLI, JR., sued in
his individual and official
capacity; WINTHROP S. SMITH, JR.,
sued in his individual and official
capacity, and the CITY OF MILFORD,
Defendants. March 9, 2010
COMPLAINT
Introduction
1. The First Amendment forbids government retaliation against public employees for
their lawful union-organizing activities. The Mayor and City Attorney of Milford, wholly
contemptuous of the Constitutional rule, did just that. Four working days before Plaintiffs
election, Defendants fired her. Their pretext was laughably flimsy: the Mayor declared himself
shocked, shocked that Plaintiff had actually raised her voice when disagreeing with her boss, the
City Attorney. For this offense, he ordered her to clean out her desk (the City provided a box)
and leave the premises immediately. This after Plaintiff, an Assistant City Attorney, had served
the City faithfully and well for twenty-two years. Plaintiff brings this case to remedy Defendant's
unlawful conduct.
2. This case is brought pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the laws of the State of Connecticut.
Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by Title 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343 and 42 U.S.C. §1983;
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is conferred by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Parties
3. Plaintiff Cynthia Anger, a resident of the State of Connecticut, worked for twenty-
two years as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Milford. During that entire time, she was a
capable, conscientious employee, respected for her legal expertise and high integrity.
with the laws of the State of Connecticut, employed plaintiff during those twenty-two years.
5. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant James L. Richetelli Jr. has been
Mayor of the City of Milford and as such its chief policymaker, with final authority over hiring
6. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Winthrop S. Smith, Jr. has been
City Attorney for the City of Milford and Plaintiffs direct supervisor.
Facts
offering professional legal advice and counsel to various mayors, department heads, and city
agencies. She excelled in both knowledge and skill. She was the go-to person for many city
agencies and officials, addressing both everyday problems and the most difficult legal issues.
She was also prized for her writing ability and wrote or edited virtually every administrative, trial,
and appellate brief that the City Attorney's Office filed for more than fifteen years. She was
known to be independent both politically and professionally; she gave advice according to the law
as she saw it, without trying to make her opinions fit a partisan agenda.
years of employment, she was never once subjected to disciplinary action of any kind.
9. During the summer and fall of 2009, Plaintiff began, along with her co-workers in
the City Attorney's Office of Milford, to advocate for unionization of her department and
10. Plaintiff led the drive to organize her department. For example, she spoke to fellow
employees about unionizing; she was the primary' contact person between AFSCME Council 4
and her co-workers regarding unionization; and she held union-organizing meetings in her home,
11. Defendants opposed Plaintiffs organizing activities and did everything they
12. Despite Defendants' efforts, and over their strenuous objections, the
Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations ("the Labor Board") informed Defendants that an
election would be held to determine whether or not attorneys in the City Attorney's Office,
Council 4.
13. That notification came on February 17. The Labor Board set March 2 as the date
of the election.
14. This timing gave Defendants just two weeks as their window of opportunity to
15. Arrogant and brazen, Defendants were determined to seize on any pretext to fire
Plaintiff in retaliation for her union-organizing activities.
16. Accordingly, on February 24, 2010, five business days after notification of the
election from the Labor Board and four business days before the scheduled election Defendant
Richetelli, at Defendant Smith's urging, had a letter hand-delivered to Plaintiff, terminating her
employment immediately and ordering her to clean out her desk and leave the building.
17. Plaintiffs alleged offense was that on Monday, February 22, she raised her voice
to Defendant Smith in the course of a conversation about legal issues facing the City. Her doing
so, the Mayor told her, required him to fire her immediately.
18. The reason the Mayor gave for firing Plaintiff was wildly implausible. For
example:
19. No one in the City Attorney's office had ever been fired - or disciplined - for the
20. In fact, neither Defendant Richetelli nor any other mayor during Plaintiffs tenure
as an employee had ever fired or disciplined an employee for raising his or her voice.
21. The offense for which Plaintiff was fired amounted to speaking her mind,
forcefully but without profanity or personal disparagement, about city business within the scope
22. It was not uncommon for City employees to raise their voices and engage in heated
23. Both Defendant Richetelli and Defendant Smith had a history of yelling at City
employees. To give just one among many examples. Defendant Smith berated the City Historian,
age 76, loudly, openly, and at length for some alleged misstep.
24. As a result of Defendants* retaliation, Plaintiff will lose income and fringe
benefits.
25. As a further result of Defendants* retaliation, Plaintiff has sustained and will
continue to sustain anxiety and distress about losing her job after twenty-two years, as well as
Claims
protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
27. Defendants Richetelli and Smith were fully aware of Plaintiffs union-
organizing activities and aware that they could not legally retaliate against her because of these
activities.
29. Richetelli and Smith's conduct was taken in reckless and wanton disregard of
30. Defendant Richetelli had final authority over the firing of an Assistant City
Attorney such as Plaintiff, and his act of terminating her in retaliation for her exercise of First
Amendment-protected union organizing activities violated Plaintiffs rights under CGS § 31-51q.
1. compensatory damages;
2. punitive damages;
3. reinstatement;
David N. Rosen
James Bhandary-Alexander
400 Orange Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06511
(203)787-3513
CT00196
CT28135
Email: drosen@davidtosenlaw.com
Email: jbhandary-alexander@davidro8enlaw.com
Her Attorneys