Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 3/18/2015
EAST LONGMEADOW – U.S. District Court Judge Michael Ponsor dismissed a number of counts related to a pending lawsuit levied against the town of East Longmeadow by former employee Rosalind Minahan.
In 2012, Minahan filed a sweeping lawsuit against the town and several public officials, including Town Administrator Nick Breault, the Board of Selectmen – then consisting of current Chair Paul Federici and former members James Driscoll and Enrico “Jack” Villamaino – Kathleen Tranghese, formerly of K&D Human Resources, with whom the town contracted its human resources services, former Town Accountant Thomas Caliento and Planning Director Robyn Macdonald.
Minahan, whose employment was terminated in April 2011 after more than 20 years, alleged she was repeatedly denied a pay raise she felt she deserved, received a harassing letter from Macdonald, was suspended in retaliation of her efforts to uncover who was behind the letter, and was ultimately discriminatorily fired for taking disability leave for which she claimed she was previously approved after suffering an emotional breakdown on the job.
She sought $850,000 in damages, claiming breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, age discrimination, disability discrimination, discriminatory retaliation, disparate treatment, discriminatory harassment, creation of a hostile work environment and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Based primarily on a 47-page recommendation made by Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy in September 2014, Ponsor made the decision of Feb. 17 to dismiss all counts against Federici, Breault, Tranghese, Caliento and Macdonald and six of the seven counts against the town, Driscoll and Villamaino.
The only remaining count, Count IV for Family and Medical Leave Act interference, pursuant to Title 29 of the United States Code (USC), section 2615(a)(1), is still pending against the town and the two former selectmen.
Ponsor also determined the Board of Selectmen would be removed from the case as a defendant.
“This entity is not sueable, and any remedy against the town of East Longmeadow will fully compensate [the] plaintiff,” Ponsor wrote in his order. “It is not necessary to clutter up the complaint with a superfluous defendant.”
Attorney Patricia Rapinchuk of Robinson Donovan P.C., representing the town in the matter, did not immediately return a request for comment, however, in a Feb. 23 email to the defendants informing them of the decision obtained by Reminder Publications, she stated, “We will be filing an answer to this amended complaint within 14 days of discovery and propounding discovery.”
The court found in most cases Minahan’s charges against the town lacked proper evidence to support her allegations, were not filed within the statute of limitations, or were not applicable under the laws of which she and her attorney David Ashworth claimed the defendants were in violation.
Ashworth did not respond for a request for comment.
Hennessy recommended dismissing five of the seven counts, stating Count V should be allowed to move forward his Report and Recommendation to Ponsor. Rapinchuk argued in an objection that Count V, a common law claim of wrongful termination, breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing only repeated claims in Count IV and should be dismissed, an assertion with which Ponsor agreed.
Hennessy stated Minahan’s allegations of age discrimination with respect to her denial of a re-grade (Count I) and retaliation (Count II) were not filed in accordance with time constraints related to such cases.
“In summary, Minahan should have filed a complaint with [the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination] within 300 days of the denial of her re-grade request to comply with the statute of limitations,” he concluded. “Thus, Minahan’s federal and state age discrimination claims with respect to the re-grade requests are barred by the statute of limitations and should be dismissed.”
Hennessy also determined the complaint was not sufficient enough to support her claims of age discrimination or retaliation. He explained that Minahan claimed the town violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on her age, however Title VII only protects against discrimination stemming from an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin and therefore counts I and II under Title VII should be dismissed.
Her claims in Count I of age discrimination related to her denial of a re-grade and eventual termination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) were also factually unsuitable and appear to be based solely on Minahan’s assumptions, Hennessy added.
“In sum, the complaint is too conclusory and meager to make an entitlement to relief on under the ADEA plausible,” he wrote. He added with regard to her retaliation claim in violation of the ADEA Minahan “has not established a causal link between protected conduct and the Town’s adverse employment actions.”
Her accusations of age discrimination in violation of the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act was also deemed doubtful, Hennessy wrote.
In her retaliation allegations in Count II under the ADEA, Hennessy stated “she has not alleged facts showing a causal link between her complaints of discriminatory action and the adverse employment actions" and her accusations “are unclear as to which facts are attributable to which defendants.”
Her claim of that the town and its officials attempted to interfere with and intimidate her from exercising her right to be free of discrimination in the workplace was determined to be void of factual evidence and she did “not specify how the individual defendants interfered with her rights under the statute, or coerced, intimidated, or threatened her.”
Minahan also made retaliation and discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act in counts II and III, respectively, which were dismissed because she “did not exhaust administrative remedies.”
Allegations of violations of Massachusetts General Law related to disability discrimination were also deemed “implausible.”
Count VI of the lawsuit also listed purported violations of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA), including misrepresentation, defamation, tortious interference with contractual relations, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. However, Hennessy explained three of those accusations – misrepresentation, defamation, and interference – “are not actionable under the MTCA.” He further stated emotional distress claims would be dismissed because Minahan did not take any steps to retain her right of action, meaning she did not properly notify the town that she was exercising her right to bring a lawsuit.
Normally emotional distress claims are barred by the Massachusetts Worker’s Compensation Act unless such notice is given.
Minahan also alleged the defendants violated her 1st and 14th Amendment rights.
The court, however, found, among other things, that because she did not specify what acts were committed by which defendants, and therefore the defendants were immune from liability in this case.