The plaintiff, by his attorney, the New York Civil Liberties Foundation, complains of the defendants as follows: Preliminary Statement

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X MICHAEL ANTHONY SUCHOCKI, Plaintiff, -against- THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF NORTHPORT and PETER A. PANARITES, Mayor. Defendants. X The plaintiff, by his attorney, the New York Civil Liberties Foundation, complains of the defendants as follows: Preliminary Statement 1. This is a civil action seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief against the defendants for wrongfully failing to hire the plaintiff to the position of dockmaster. Plaintiff was formerly employed as dockmaster and is fully qualified for the position of dockmaster. Plaintiff was denied the position of dockmaster because he had exercised his First Amendment rights in publicly speaking, and otherwise exercising his First Amendment rights, concerning an ongoing controversy between the defendants and Village Police Chief, Eric Bruckenthal. Chief Bruckenthal had been accused of wrongdoing by defendants. Plaintiff and many others in the community actively supported Chief Bruckenthal by lawfully attending public meetings, holding rallies, displaying signs and speaking publicly with their neighbors. Jurisdiction 2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C and 1988, 28 U.S.C and 1343, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. State law claims are brought under the New York State Constitution Article 1, 8. This court has supplemental jurisdiction for the state law claims. Parties 3. At all times relevant, plaintiff was and is a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the County of Suffolk, State of New York. 4. At all times relevant, defendant THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF NORTHPORT (hereinafter referred to as the "VILLAGE') was and is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.

2 5. At all times relevant, defendant PETER A. PANARITES (hereinafter referred to as the "MAYOR") was and is the Mayor of the defendant VILLAGE. Mayor Panarites is being sued in his individual and official capacities. Factual Allegations 6. Plaintiff is a resident of the unincorporated section of Northport, and a retired Teamster, having retired in Plaintiff has been a lifetime boater and has had much experience in all aspects of boating including all activities relating to docking. 8. In the Spring of 2001, plaintiff answered a newspaper advertisement placed by the VILLAGE for the position of dockmaster. 9. After filing an application, plaintiff was hired by the VILLAGE as dockmaster. 10. The position of dockmaster is seasonal, with the season running from Memorial Day until after Labor Day, sometimes extending into October. 11. The duties of a dockmaster consist of welcoming boaters to the port, assisting boaters in tying up at the dock, showing boaters where to get water and electricity, inquiring of the boaters how long they will be using the dock, and collecting docking fees set by the VILLAGE. 12. During the 2001 season, plaintiff was employed as one of five dockmasters hired by the VILLAGE. 13. During the 2001 season, plaintiff was assigned the evening shift, five nights a week, and also regularly worked day shifts when asked, and properly performed his duties. 14. The hiring of seasonal dockmasters requires new applications to be made for each season. 15. In 2002, the plaintiff applied for and was hired as a dockmaster. 16. During the 2002 season, plaintiff was employed as one of six dockmasters. 17. During the 2002 season, plaintiff worked the evening shift, five nights a week, and also regularly worked day shifts when asked, and properly performed his duties. 18. In 2003, the plaintiff applied for the position of dockmaster. 19. In 2003, plaintiff was offered employment to work as dockmaster for the VILLAGE, and was assigned to the day shift to work seven days a week.

3 20. Plaintiff decided to turn down the offer of employment for the 2003 season. 21. In October 2003, the VILLAGE filed charges against Village Police Chief Eric Bruckenthal who was then suspended. 22. Plaintiff felt that the actions and charges taken against Chief Bruckenthal were unfair and without merit. 23. As a result of the above, plaintiff engaged in certain activities to protest the actions taken against Chief Bruckenthal. These activities included attending a rally in support of the Chief at the American Legion Hall and attending the Chief's disciplinary hearing. 24. In addition, plaintiff placed signs upon his truck expressing his support for Chief Bruckenthal and protesting the defendants' actions. 25. The MAYOR owns an ice cream parlor located on Main Street in Northport. 26. As part of his protest, plaintiff would legally park his truck, with the signs attached, on Main Street in front of the MAYOR's ice cream parlor. 27. Plaintiff chose this manner of protest because Main Street is a traditional gathering place and public forum in the Village of Northport, and because it was wellknown by the community that the MAYOR owned the ice cream parlor. 28. Plaintiff was told by a VILLAGE police officer that the acting Police Chief had said that plaintiff was in violation of an unspecified ordinance. Plaintiff then went to the Police Station and spoke with Sgt. Lawrence O'Gara, the acting Chief of Police. Plaintiff told Sgt. O'Gara that plaintiff's activities were lawful. Sgt. O'Gara told plaintiff that in the long run plaintiff would be sorry, because Chief Bruckenthal was going to lose. 29. Plaintiff engaged in the above described protest activity for several months. 30. During this time, plaintiff was never issued a summons of any kind. 31. During this time, plaintiff never harassed anyone. 32. On the day after the Village Council election, the MAYOR approached the plaintiff in front of the ice cream parlor and told plaintiff that if he applied for a dockmaster's position for 2004, that he would be hired. 33. On April 8, 2004, plaintiff filed an application for the dockmaster's position. 34. On May 18, 2004, the VILLAGE held a board meeting at which the positions of dockmaster would be filled.

4 35. Plaintiff's name was not submitted to the VILLAGE board for hire. 36. Plaintiff attended the above meeting. When he inquired why he wasn't hired, the MAYOR stated that he took into account "the actions of certain people, and you know, the conduct that they displayed in the past." When questioned further, the MAYOR stated "I don't compliment people that put up signs on parked cars and harass people." 37. After the board meeting, the MAYOR reiterated for a reporter for a local newspaper that he was not happy with plaintiff's conduct during the time that the Bruckenthal case was being conducted, and further stated "The way he conducted himself...he can express himself once in a while but to keep doing it day in and day out is ridiculous...that's not the kind of person I want to manage our docks." 38. Based upon the above, it is clear that plaintiff was not hired because of his activities protesting the treatment of Chief Bruckenthal. Claims 39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs. 40. At all times mentioned above, defendants acted under color of law. 41. The acts and omissions of the defendants have deprived the plaintiff of the rights and immunities secured to him by the United States Constitution, particularly the right to freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment, in violation of 42 U.S.C By reason of the above, plaintiff has suffered emotional and pecuniary damages, and has suffered embarrassment and humiliation. 42. Defendants' actions violated the New York State Constitution, Article 1, 8. Claims for Relief WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court grant judgment as follows: a- Ordering the defendants to hire plaintiff to the position of dockmaster for the 2005 season; b- Back pay and front pay in an amount the Court shall deem just and reasonable; c- Compensatory damages for emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation in an amount the Court shall deem just and reasonable; d- Punitive damages against the individual defendant in an amount the Court shall deem just and reasonable; e- Attorney's fees as prescribed by statute;

5 f- Such other and further relief as the Court deems just. Dated: Bohemia, New York October 8, 2004 New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation Attorney for Plaintiff Alan Polsky, as Cooperating Attorney 630 Johnson Avenue - Suite 006 P.O. Box 170 Bohemia, New York 11716