(Updated) The New Haven 20 want to be paid for the “severe mental anguish and emotional distress” the firefighters say they endured during their years-long court battle for promotions.
The group of firefighters made their argument for the payments in a document filed in New Haven U.S. District Court on Thursday. The filing argues that the city should pay the New Haven 20 back pay and compensatory damages — with interest. The specific amount of money would be determined by a jury trial.
The filing also argues that some of the claims brought by the New Haven 20 are still be decided after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, raising the possibility of future trials.
Click here to read the document. The city will file a response in the coming weeks.
Reached Friday, New Haven Corporation Counsel Victor Bolden indicated the city opposes making payments to the six firefighters who didn’t get promotions. In an email statement, he said that the Supreme Court’s decision applies only to the 14 newly promoted members of the New Haven 20. He didn’t say whether those 14 deserve damages or not.
Thursday’s court filing is the latest development in the ongoing case of Ricci v. DeStefano, which began in 2004 when a group of mostly white firefighters sued the city. The group, called the New Haven 20, claimed the city had discriminated against them by throwing out the results of a 2003 promotions exam after African-Americans scored poorly.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this summer for the New Haven 20, a decision which led to the promotion of 14 of the firefighters in a ceremony last week.
But the case is not yet over.
When the case returned from the Supreme Court to her New Haven courtroom in November, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton ordered the New Haven 20 to submit a brief on the type of damages to which they believe they are entitled. That’s the document that was filed on Thursday by their lawyer, Karen Lee Torre.
In it, Torre first makes a case for back pay and “emotional distress” damages for her clients. She then argues that some claims from the original lawsuit remain to be decided.
She also indicates there are grounds for un-promoted members of the New Haven 20 to seek promotions.
The city must respond to Torre’s filing by Jan. 12.
In an email Friday, Bolden said the city will address Torre’s filing “at the appropriate time.”
“For now, suffice it to say, that the City believes that the Supreme Court’s decision only provides for relief under Title VII and only to the 14 plaintiffs who would have been promoted if the 2003 exams had been certified,” he wrote.
“Mental Anguish”
Regarding back pay, Torre writes, “The back pay award should consist of lost salary, anticipated raises, pension rights, seniority credit, retirement, and all other benefits.”
The New Haven 20 were deprived not only of money they would have earned had they been promoted, they were also denied salary they might have earned from further promotions that might have happened during the five years that the Ricci case was being decided, Torre argues.
“The plaintiffs have waited more than five years to assume positions for which they
previously had qualified, and have further lost the opportunity during that time to compete for promotion to higher ranks, which is an additional compensable injury,” she writes.
Torre makes it clear that her argument covers not just the 14 of the New Haven 20 that were promoted last week. She mentions by name four who were not promoted. “As for plaintiffs [Edward] Riordan, [Sean] Patton, [Thomas] Michaels and John Vendetto, they have reserved the right to contest the city’s position that they would not have been promoted had the city certified the lists in 2004.”
Like their fellow plaintiffs, these men suffered a “career stall, and are entitled to damages for those injuries,” she writes
Torre does not mention Kevin Roxbee and James Kottage, two other members of the New Haven 20 who were not promoted last week. Unlike the four she does name, Roxbee and Kottage were not among the top 21 scorers on their exam.
In addition to back pay plus interest, plaintiffs deserve further compensation for the pain they suffered, Torre argues. “The plaintiffs endured severe mental anguish and emotional distress as a result of the rejection of the results of the civil-service selection process.”
Again making sure that she mentions non-promoted plaintiffs, Torre writes, “The plaintiffs, including Riordan, Patton, Michaels and John Vendetto were further subjected to the humiliation and economic hardship of prolonged career stagnancy in a rancorous atmosphere fostered by raw racial divides.”
All of the New Haven 20 deserve damages, Torre argues. “The amount of these damages will be established through the evidence presented at trial.”
Finally, she writes, the city should pay the extensive attorney’s fees that have accumulated over the years, including the expense of taking a case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Outstanding Claims
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Ricci case in June, it made judgment on only one of the claims included in the original lawsuit, the one pertaining to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the brief she filed on Thursday, Torre argues that other claims are still outstanding, and need to be decided.
Torre argues that all the matters not ruled on by the Supreme Court now return to be decided. “Liability remains to be adjudicated on plaintiffs’ equal protection claims, civil-rights conspiracy claims, and state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress,” she writes.
More Ricci Promotions Coming?
The third part of Torre’s document deals with future promotions and Michael Briscoe, the African-American firefighter who recently sued the city.
Briscoe claims the 2003 promotions test was scored in a way that unfairly disadvantaged blacks and argues that as the highest scorer on the verbal portion of the lieutenant’s exam, he should be promoted.
Torre argues that Briscoe’s claims don’t hold water, partly because not-yet-promoted members of the New Haven 20 might argue for promotion into one of the spots that Briscoe would like to fill. She indicates that the six remaining un-promoted members of the New Haven 20 will be making a case for their promotion.
Briscoe is looking to “gain an unearned promotion to which he has absolutely no entitlement,” Torre writes. He wants to “jump to the head of the line” and “diminish the plaintiffs’ own promotional opportunities by reducing the number of vacancies for which they might compete,” she continues. In other words, Briscoe is trying to take a lieutenant spot that might otherwise go to a not-yet-promoted member of the New Haven 20.
To prevent this from happening, Torre writes, the New Haven 20 will be seeking an order that keeps current promotion vacancies unfilled.”[P]laintiffs give notice that an additional form of remedial relief which they are seeking (an order that preserves those new vacancies) in fact precludes such opportunistic maneuvers by these newly arrived interlopers.”
Finally, Torre writes that the non-promoted members of the New Haven 20 should be allowed to make their case for promotion. “[O]ther of the plaintiffs believe they would have been promoted during the life of the eligibility lists had the city certified them in 2004, and thus they should not be foreclosed from establishing their entitlement.”
Torre’s statements in Thursday’s filing — indicating that other Ricci plaintiffs might be looking to get promoted — follow similar statements in a filing just two days earlier. In that document, Torre said the New Haven 20 will be seeking an order “precluding the city from filling any other vacancies in the ranks of Lieutenant or Captain with any individual who is not a plaintiff in this action.” That order would “preserve those vacancies for any plaintiff not promoted thus far (that is, not among the uncontested 14)”.
The members of the New Haven 20 who have not been promoted are:
Lieutenant’s test:
‑Sean Patton, ranked 20th on the eligibility list
Captain’s test:
‑Edward Riordan, ranked 9th on the list
‑John Vendetto, 10th
‑Thomas Michaels, 19th
‑Kevin Roxbee, not among the top 21
‑James Kottage, not among the top 21
Past stories on fire department promotions and the Ricci case:
• After 6‑Year Battle, Firefighters Get Badges
• Ricci Case’s “Tinney Intervenors” Try Again
• 10 More Firefighters Promoted
• Judge Blocks Black Firefighters’ Move
• Board Promotes 14 Firefighters
• Judge Orders Firefighter Promotions
• Black Firefighters Seek To Halt Promotions
• Promotions Pitched In Ricci Case
• Ricci’s Back In Court
• After Ricci Ruling, Black Firefighter Sues City
• Ricci Takes The Stand
• In D.C., Two Latino Views On Sotomayor
• Dems Swing Back On Ricci
• ConnectiCOSH Kibosh
• Sotomayor: I Didn’t “Hide” Ricci Case
• Is Ricci Being Smeared?
• Sotomayor Speaks On Ricci
• Ricci Takes Center Stage
• Watley: I’d Have Promoted Ricci
• Firebirds, NAACP: Ricci Won’t Stop Us
• “If You Work Hard You Can Succeed In America”
• Was He The Culprit?
• Supreme Court Overturns City On Ricci
• On Page 25, A Hint
• Minority Firefighters Vow Post-Ricci Unity
• Ricci Ruling Won’t End Quest
• Ricci, Sotomayor Brand DeStefano
• Firefighter Case Reveals Surprise Obama Stand
• Justices Zero In On Race-Based Distinctions
• Rights Groups Back Black Firefighters
• The Supreme Stakes: Title VII’s Future
• Dobbs v. Bolden
• Latino Group Backs White Firefighters
• Black Firefighters: Ricci Case Poses Grave Threat
• NAACP Backs City In Firefighter Case
• Paging Justice Kennedy
• Fire Inspectors Promoted
• Fire Inspector List Approved
• U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Firefighters’ Case
• Fire Promotions Examined in Supreme Court
I'm sorry but this comment kills me:
“severe mental anguish and emotional distress”
I think they had a right to their promotions but I can't imagine claiming that. It sounds pretty lame. "I have severe mental anguish over not getting a job."
Welcome to the real world--I have severe mental anguish over this claim. Who do I sue?