Professional Documents
Culture Documents
____________
No. 95-1596
EDMUND G. STORLAZZI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendants, Appellees.
____________
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of
this court
issued on October
24, 1995,
is
No. 95-1596
EDMUND G. STORLAZZI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
Before
____________________
Matthew Cobb,
____________
and Sch
Administration, defendants-appellees.
Paul F. Kelley, with
______________
Coleman,
_______
were on
brief
Teachers Association
members of
Association
____________________
____________________
_______________
*Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
No. 95-1596
EDMUND G. STORLAZZI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
Before
____________________
Matthew Cobb,
____________
and Sch
Administration, defendants-appellees.
Paul F. Kelley, with
______________
Coleman,
_______
were on
brief
Teachers Association
members of
____________________
____________________
_______________
Association
BOWNES,
BOWNES,
Plaintiff-appellant, Edmund
He appeals from
Arlington, Massachuset
three sets
defendants in three
first case, filed
cases, which
trial.
past
pres
members
in t
of Arlington
Education Association.
was deprived
speech; breach
Committee;
a violation of 42 U.S.C.
of his
First Amendment
of the collective
Committee; breach
of
The complaint
1982
1983 beca
right to
freedom
bargaining agreement by
the Sch
settlement
agreement
by
the
Sch
Education
Association;
defamation
and
intentional
infliction
emotional distress.
The second
plaintiff's
action,
motion to
prejudice,
which was
amend the
alleged:
that
filed
on
March 19,
plaintiff's
employment
1993,
af
denied with
was
termina
process
violation
termination hearing;
for failing
to
provide
notice
and a
II were
of emotional distress.
named members
Administration,
and
of the
the
The defendants
School Committee,
Union
(Arlington
the H
Educat
Association).
Plaintiff filed
School
Committee,
Association.
his third
the
The complaint
Union
action on
and
alleged:
the
May 12,
1993, against
Massachusetts
Teache
failed
Agreement by the
Sch
Committee; breach
the Massachusetts
union);
that
the
summary
that
judgment was
improper
imprope
because
procedural defects; and there was no substantive basis for the summ
judgment.
After
carefully
examining
the
record,
we affirm
Consolidation.
Consolidation.
question of
in
actions
involving
common
order a joint
issue
When
the
consolidated;
it
it
may
may
order
all
make
such
orders
the
actions
concerning
the
We note
should be
abuse of
three suits.
Storlazzi I
_________
Rule.
that
in the
first
hearing before
plaintiff
tried together.*
discretion.
See 9
___
Our
standard of review on
this issue
Arthur R. Mill
2383
(1995).
the party
omitted).
opposing it
There
has
no prejudice
pointed out
878 F.2d 5, 8
(1st C
usually be granted
been
As we
unl
prejudice.'" (citat
shown
here.
These
Plaintiff
objects
procedural grounds:
to
that
that
the
grant of
no motion had
summary
judgment
on th
in the offing;
and that
plaintiff had
The court
At
that on
it would
____________________
*Counsel
plaintiff on
the other
two cases.
Counsel in
those cases
was
present.
and
II and III.
He first sta
the
defendants had
been taken
and that
to
do?"
Attorney
"Monell."**
______
depositions, if
He
Cobb
never,
gave
however,
their
depositions inclu
vague
told the
general
court
answer
what
invok
additio
he intended to file.
court's
question
undertake.
as
to
what
further
discovery
he
intended
plaintiff's
claim that
he had
been deprived
of discovery
in th
notice
and affidavits.
pro
It is t
They d
summary judgment un
(c)
(c)
Motion for
Motion for
Judgment
Judgment
on the
on the
Pleadings.
Pleadings.
After
the
pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the
____________________
on the pleadings,
If,
matters outside
judgment and
reasonable opportunity
to
present all
material made
is famil
The plain
language of
materials outside
plaintiff on notice
the court
might be converted
Our
observation in
983 F.2d 3
a year between
had
complaint.
elapsed
since
Summary
plaintiffs
Moreover, over a
initially
filed their
"follow[] hard on
the
the
district
court
was
thinking
in
terms
of
summary
judgm
disposition.
explanation
Most
of
the
hearing
was
devoted
to
the
judg
First, I am
pleadings,
obliged on
the
affidavits
summary judgment to
that
have
been
look to
the
filed,
the
see in this
case -- correct
number
of
plaintiff's side.
-- is the
of accusations,
I am wrong
me if
And what
accusations,
there's
silence
on
the
where there
is an
affidavit to
it.
to the
were given
way students
In other
he objected
courses,
case.
disagree."
me the plaintiff
hasn't met
his burden.
That's
not a
sufficient response.
__________
Then I
there
tried to discern
protected whether
said and
what
was done
connection
to him.
of establishing causal
With
respect
to
whole
host
of
Mr.
Storlazzi's
followed.
That's --
not dispositive on
very helpful.
date and
although coincidence of
the issue
of causation,
it's
to them at all.
With
respect
to
those
things
which
he
says
he
was
Singling
And, as I have
an example in
the
performed
basis.
other
against
who
them, or
had
that
administrative
there
wasn't a
actions
rational
__________
So with
all
the
students,
respect to
administrative
about
administering
preliminary
all of the
actions
locking
final
of this
respond.
would
here
student
exams,
case, is
administrative decisions,
be sufficient,
and
about
transferring
lavatories,
my
that, if
about
understanding
they can
is
provide a
the plaintiff
has
to
__________
After
the
requirements,
court
briefly
discussed
the
Mt.
Healthy
_____________
The co
responded as follows:
So
described, I
a reasonable jury
So I
am using Mount
it describes
week in which to
organ
court pointed
out that
temporal one."
"one way
of proving
causal connection
this
Clearly
to
judge,
Plainti
____________________
***Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977
____________________________________________
objected
without
avail.
Three
days later
judge
issued
summ
We
its
substantive summary
not
regurgitate
appropriate,
the
however,
court's extensive
judgment holding.****
district
to make
court's
a few
We,
opinion.
general
therefore, w
We
remarks.
think
First,
a prima fa
_____ __
case.
He
affidavits
and references
to filed
asseverations supported
depositions made
by defendan
In
language of Rule
a showing
the
In Kelly v. United States, 924 F.2d 355, 357 (1st Cir. 1991),
_______________________
upon "mere
may not r
The observations
made in
F.2d 1169, 1172-73 n.5 (1st Cir. 1988), are germane here:
and affidavits
constitute
sufficient grounds
to
____________________
generate
factual
dispute
concerning
the
defendants'
of that
motivation
by circumstantial
evidence.
We
suspect
motivations for
employee
dismissals.
Kercado-Melendez v. Aponte-Rogue,
___________________________________
calling for more specific
plaintiffs'
claim
however,
we
do
Rather,
for
any
circumstantial
not
to take
829
See, e.g.,
___________
F.2d at
264.
In
reject
substantive
or direct
summary judgment
necessary
under
of constitutionally
Celotex/Anderson
________________
the
plaintiffs'
claim,
whether
evidence, the
upon
party against
whom
claim out
contention.
built
standard,
realm of
and
temporal
causation.
proximity of
This
be interpreted to
occurrences might
would appear
to run
be sufficient
counter to
co
mean that
to establ
the rule
in t
circuit.
In Kaufman
_______
we held
of members
of
insufficient
U.S.
242
(1986),
Kaufman, 841
_______
to generate
F.2d at 1172.
We
genuine
issue
held to the
of material
same effect
fa
in Avil
____
appellees.
appellees.
__________