Savage et al v. City of Springfield et al

Massachusetts District Court
Judge:Katherine A Robertson
Case #: 3:18-cv-30164
Nature of Suit442 Civil Rights - Employment
Cause28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Case Filed:Oct 09, 2018
Terminated:Jul 03, 2024
Last checked: Sunday Apr 07, 2019 5:15 AM EDT
Defendant
City of Springfield
City Solicitor for City of Springfield 36 Court Street Suite 210
Springfield, MA 01103
Represented By
Edward M. Pikula
Attorney Edward M. Pikula
contact info
Defendant
Springfield Fire Department
City Solicitor for City of Springfield 36 Court Street Suite 210
Springfield, MA 01103
Represented By
Edward M. Pikula
Attorney Edward M. Pikula
contact info
Plaintiff
Randolph Blake
Law Office of Arnold J. Lizana III P.C. 1350 Main Street Suite 302
Springfield, MA 01103
Represented By
Arnold J. Lizana, III
Law Office Of Arnold J. Lizana Iii P.C.
contact info
Plaintiff
Marc Savage
Law Office of Arnold J. Lizana III P.C. 1350 Main Street, Suite 302
Springfield, MA 01103
Represented By
Arnold J. Lizana, III
Law Office Of Arnold J. Lizana Iii P.C.
contact info

GPO Jun 10 2020
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 65 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' Motion is denied insofar as it seeks to add Count IX as set forth in the proposed amended complaint and insofar as it asserts claims against Sarno. As to adding new factual allegations, Plaintiffs' Motion is denied as to allegations supporting Count IX and otherwise granted, but only as to factual allegations that are included in the proposed amended complaint filed as Docket Number 65-1. Plaintiffs' Motion is granted as to claims against Conant and granted as to Calvi only as to Counts II, IV (under Chapter 151B), and first Count VII. Plaintiffs are directed to file an amended complaint that complies with the rulings in this Memorandum and Order by no later than June 26, 2020. See attached Memo & Order for complete details. (Rivera, Melissa)
GPO Mar 08 2021
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered re: Defendants' 77 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. For the above-stated reasons, Defendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:(1) Defendants Motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of all claims against the Springfield Fire Department;(2) Defendants motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs Title VII discrimination claim against Conant;(3) Defendants motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs Title VII claim against Springfield for discrete acts of discrimination occurring before October 26, 2016 for Savage and May 4, 2017 for Blake;(4) Defendants motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs Title VII claim against Springfield for discrete acts of discrimination occurring on or after October 26, 2016 for Savage and on or after May 4, 2017 for Blake, and insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim;(5) Defendants motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of the class allegations;(6) Defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B claims to the extent that they are premised on actions that occurred before October 9, 2015;(7) Defendants motion to dismiss is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B hostile work environment claim;(8) Defendants motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, §1(e) claim;(9) Defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs Title VII retaliation claim against Conant and Calvi; (10) Defendants motion to dismiss is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B retaliation claim against Conant and Calvi;(11) Defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs negligent supervision claim against Conant and Springfield;(12) Defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Conant and Springfield;(13) Defendants motion to dismiss is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs equal protection claim against Calvi; and(14) Defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs claim against Conant and the City for breach of contract.Plaintiffs are not required to file an amended complaint complying with this Memorandum and Order. Rather, the scope of Plaintiffs claims will be determined based on the existing amended complaint and the contents of this Memorandum and Order.It is so ordered. (Finn, Mary)
GPO Jul 14 2022
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Defendants' Motions to Exclude (Dkt. Nos. 102, 132, 134, 136, and 138). For the above-stated reasons, Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert declaration (Dkt. No. 130) is DENIED; Defendants' motion to exclude the spreadsheet on which Plaintiffs' expert relies (Dkt. No. 132) is DENIED; Defendants' motion to exclude news articles (Dkt. No. 134) is GRANTED; Defendants' motion to exclude certain agency decisions and declarations (Dkt. 136) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; Defendants' motion to exclude portions of Plaintiffs' declarations submitted in support of the motion for class certification (Dkt. 138) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 102) is DENIED. See attached Order for complete details.(Rivera, Melissa)
GPO Jun 03 2024
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on 180 MOTION to Exclude the Opinion Testimony and Declaration Evidence of Dr. Christopher Erath. For the above-stated reasons, Defendant's motion to exclude opinion testimony and declaration evidence of Dr. Christopher Erath is DENIED. See attached Memo & Order for complete details. (Rivera, Melissa)
GPO Jun 05 2024
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs from Offering Witnesses or Evidence as to Non-Economic Damages docket entries 182 and 219. SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (Zamorski, Michael)
GPO Jun 06 2024
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on Defendants' 189 Motion in Limine and Memorandum to Exclude Testimony or Opinions Subject to Issue or Claim Preclusion and Contrary to Matters Barred by Principles of Res Judicata, Defendants' 191 Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinion Testimony from Plaintiffs or Others Regarding the City's Residency Ordinance, and Plaintiffs'192 First Motion in Limine to Limit any Mention of the Pending Superior Court Contempt Proceeding and Preclude Relitigation of Failed Arguments from Superior Court Trial. See attached Memorandum and Order for complete details. (Zamorski, Michael)
GPO Jun 07 2024
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on Plaintiffs' Second 193 MOTION In Limine to Preclude Defendants from Arguing First Amendment Defenses Related to Offensive Social Media Posts. The court determines that there is an inadequate record on which to rule whether Defendants would be able to avail themselves of a first amendment defense to the extent that it is a defense asserted here. The threshold inquiry whether the public employees were speaking as citizens on matter of public concern requires consideration of "the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147-48 (1983). Here, both the content and context are unknown. Nor could the court conduct a Pickering balance test in an evidentiary vacuum. That said, Defendants arguments do not appear to invoke a first amendment defense in any event. Rather, Defendants attack Plaintiffs' prima facie case insofar as they claim that the posts were not motivated by a protected characteristic (i.e., race or religion) and are insufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of Plaintiffs' employment and create an abusive work environment. Defendants also maintain that they conducted investigations and meted out appropriate discipline such that there is no basis for employer liability under Title VII. None of these arguments can be resolved absent a factual record. As such, the court will deny Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice and will rule on the admissibility of evidence during the trial. See attached Memo & Order for complete details. (Rivera, Melissa)
Docket last updated: 4 hours ago
Tuesday, November 05, 2024
305 305 notice Notice of Filing of Official Transcript Tue 11/05 10:13 AM
NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at[LINK:https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/transcripts.htm] (Kelly, Danielle)
Related: [-]
304 304 appeal Transcript - Appeal Tue 11/05 10:13 AM
Transcript of Final Pretrial Conference held on June 7, 2024, before Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. COA Case No. 24-1720 The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Linda Walsh at lwalshsteno@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 11/26/2024. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/6/2024. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/3/2025. (Kelly, Danielle)
Related: [-]