<em>Ricci</em> Victors Seek Damages | New Haven Independent

Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

NHI Newsletter

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Ricci Victors Seek Damages

by Thomas MacMillan | Dec 18, 2009 8:48 am

(35) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Legal Writes

(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

Comments

posted by: streever on December 18, 2009 9:11am

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?

posted by: Enough on December 18, 2009 9:39am

I knew the promotions wasn’t going to be enough.. the NH 20 should just admit it was always about the fame and money..

posted by: Bruce on December 18, 2009 10:37am

Can’t say I didn’t see this coming. These guys have been in limbo for 5 years. The ironic thing is that the city threw out the scores in order to avoid being sued.

posted by: Seth P. on December 18, 2009 10:38am

The victory should have been enough. Greed and sloth are sins that will follow you to your graves. Relish in your victory and get on with your lives. This is shameful and a slap in the face to New Haven Taxpayers who had no say in the matter whatsoever. I am interested in finding out how many of the “New Haven 20” actually reside in New Haven.

I fully understand setting a precedent, but this is only going to hurt the city and the taxpayers in the long-run. Is it possible to move on from here without any future litigation?

posted by: Seth P. on December 18, 2009 10:51am

I forgot to mention vanity.

posted by: streever on December 18, 2009 10:55am

I guess it’s fair enough that they are suing for back pay, but it just sounds like they are looking for more than their fair share. Especially in a time when the city is cutting services for our neediest citizens.

posted by: The Professor on December 18, 2009 11:27am

Here’s my favorite part:

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.�

I thought this was about meritocracy and all that good stuff. But even the ones with the bad text scores are suing now? Doesn’t that undercut the whole moral outrage thing they were pushing?

posted by: Walt on December 18, 2009 11:30am

They deserve it.

Too bad the Mayor, Kimber and the other guilty parties can’t be made to pony up.

Speaking of guilt, whar is the scoop on you Streever, who seemed to accept responsibility for your accident by the Green?

Randall Beach in the Register last week indicated you are “miffed” that the lady whose car you hit while you were several feet in the wrong (Opposite direction) lane and she was in the right lanes, did not swerve in time to miss you.

With friends like Beach , you do not need enemies.

Is this just Beach stirring us up, or are you now tossing blame at the apparently innocent woman driver?

You looked better when you accepted responsibility for your ill-fated adventure, as I see it.

What’s up now?

(Glad you are feeling better, but ir still seems your errors, not hers caused the problem.).

posted by: TAXPAYER on December 18, 2009 11:55am

Enough is enough you were all promoted just go and serve the city with this mental anguish I have emotional stress just reading this article. Streever said it all.

posted by: steve ross, human on December 18, 2009 12:28pm

Walt,

No bell went off telling you that your personal comment to Streever is totally inappropriate here?

posted by: streever on December 18, 2009 12:43pm

Hey Walt,

thank you! and yes, it was my error. I’m not suing or anything. I suspect Beach’s editors used the term “miffed”—it didn’t come up at any point, and subjects of articles are never allowed to review them before print or I’d have changed that. I’m definitely not “miffed”—what I was referring to is a provision of CT law—shared fault. Two individuals in an accident can both be found “at fault” to some degree, and in some states, any percentage of fault on the other driver’s part means their insurance will cover some of your medical bills.

Facing 60k in medical bills, I looked into this: if she was talking on her cellphone, speeding, not paying attention, then she’d be legally & partially at fault, and her insurance might, at no cost to her, pay for some of my medical bills. I was bothered by the difference between her statement in the Register (she never saw me) and the police report, which said she clearly saw both of us.

I dislike it when information is contradictory, and that’s what my comment was about—generally speaking, it’s always better to assume what an individual wrote is more accurate/more contextually accurate than a newspaper quote ;-).

I’m definitely not trying to blame her or make her appear to be a bad person—but, like I said before, “fault” is not a moral & ethical finding, but a legal determination of how the accident occurred. That’s why it bothered me to see so much speculation on “fault” in the comments of this paper, with it skewed toward her being some awful person. I don’t believe that, and while I was grateful that people have such a good opinion of me, I wanted them to reserve their judgement and let the police/courts/etc determine who was to blame.

posted by: anti-professor on December 18, 2009 1:17pm

“Professor” got it wrong - those guys are saying they have a right to put on evidence showing that they would have been promoted back in 04-06 if the the city hadn’t done what it did. They are not asking for anything they are not entitled to - that’s a Firebirds tactic.

posted by: City Hall Watch on December 18, 2009 1:18pm

We all knew this day of reckoning was coming. I would suggest this get to settlement as quickly as possible and be prepared to write an appropriate sized check. Those who pretend to worry about taxpayers are some of the biggest supporters of this mayor and by extension, his long practice of racial politics and promotions. His decision-making capabilities are riddled with a history of writing checks for hiring and firing misdeeds; for tearing down buildings he didn’t need to and more. You voted for him. This is what you get. Just pay up.

posted by: Exiled Italian Shill on December 18, 2009 2:49pm

Enough & the Professor -

I agree 100% with both of you. Never forget that the lead plaintiff Mr. Ricci got on the Fire Department by suing because he failed an entry-level fire test.

The firefighters that did not rank high enough on the test to be promoted should have no claim to any promotions. To me this is their counsel trying to keep 20 plaintiffs together - as I am sure that those promoted will cut those not promoted loose in a heartbeat if it in any way endangers their big payday.

I also have little doubt that the city would have entertained a settlement years ago but for the NH20 holding out for a big payday. Seems to me the high court never got into equal protection on their decision and as a matter the lower court has little to base any reward on other than backpay and potentially Title VII violations which have a cap.

They won their case and their promotions. Collect what is rightfully theirs in backpay. Move on. Dont be pigs.

posted by: just a girl on December 18, 2009 3:12pm

I’m really shocked by all the negative comments. Put yourself in thier shoes…they took and passed the test in 2003, had the city not thrown out the results, they would have EARNED a higher pay for the past 6 years. The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that the city was wrong. These men deserve back pay, they deserve to have thier legal bills paid and they deserve our respect.

Not only did they take time away from thier family to study and PASS the test, they also had to take time away from thier families to fight for what was right, thier promotions.

It’s time for the city to settle this once and for all.

posted by: taxpayer on December 18, 2009 4:10pm

JUST A GIRL

You are right but they did get what they should of in 2003 and happy for them. All were promoted a week ago the ink did not dry and here we are again if they do not have the money they are suing again. I understand what their families went through it is over they need to think about this city Gov. Rell did not give enough money for this city to maintain the workers and so forth and so on think about it.

posted by: Walt on December 18, 2009 4:41pm

Streever…

Thanks, appreciate the answer.

Steve Ross…

Somewhat inappropriate? Sure. Totally? No.

As the Streever accident story is now old, the only way I know to get a question seen on this site. is to tag it on a current story and maybe get an answer,

I thought Streever’s comment re the “fighting 20” , with which I disagree, was as appropriate an opportunity to toss in the question as I was going to get..

I thought Beach’s article put Streever in a comparatively bad light,and was curious as to his own view. He appears to agree.

It worked, and, as I see it, was OK.

[...]

posted by: lawyer u r not on December 18, 2009 6:09pm

I have to be crystal clear here. NONE of you were in their shoes, you have no idea what these firemen went through, what happened here was municipal corruption and political horsetrading at its worst. We will never know if anyone died as a result of this. The city was denied the best firemen for the job.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for taking stock on this matter. Streever, who came to your aid? When you were nearly road kill. How dare you?

What is the difference if any of these guys live in the city or not? So non resident employees should be treated different. I believe the spanish fireman lived in the city until he had to bail out for fear of his own life and that of his family after he was beat down by a kimber henchman.

Furthermore, although I am no lawyer, the brief attached here is merely a continuation of the ricci lawsuit. This is nothing new. The briscoe and tinney are new, and their arguments are insulting and baseless.

posted by: Irish on December 18, 2009 6:28pm

To “Exiled Italian Shill” - Ricci did not fail the entry level test. “You Lie” as one Congressman famously said. Ricci passed, was on the list, but the city wouldn’t hire him because he was a white guy. It’s right in the court record of his lawsuit. Your other comments show that your name should be “[...] Shill for the City.”

posted by: Exiled Italian Shill on December 18, 2009 6:46pm

JUST A GIRL -

Yes they won the case. Yes they deserve backpay. Yes their ambulance chasing lawyer deserves her legal fees paid. And yes, as firemen, they GET out respect already. But there is a cut-off point to all the sympathy.

There is a pattern here. Sue when you fail an entry level fire exam. Sue to certify the test and be promoted. Sue for back wages. Sue for mental anguish. Sue to promote those that did not score high enough on an exam to be promoted.

What’s next? G-d forbid that their superiors ever discipline any of the NH20 because they will sue due to being unfairly targeted based upon their original promotional suit. No, wait . . . the 20 will sue based on conspiracy between black firefighters and the city to resist mental anguish payments . . . .

The NH20 are firefighters. Understand firefighters? Stressful job? I mean these guys are not Domino’s Pizza delivery guys or librarians. They are fire fighters. They are supposed to run into buildings on fires when the general public is running out of them - thats stressful. So if the NH20 says a five-year delay in promotions is too much mental anguish maybe they need to get new jobs or perhaps they were really unworthy of those promotions from the start?

It is not going to end. Take the promotion. You deserve the back wages. Forget the mental anguish suit and don’t be pigs.

posted by: DKR on December 18, 2009 7:49pm

thanks kimber for “NOT DOING YOUR JOB” on the fire board. you’re the one always looking to be in the spotlight and not take responsibility for “YOUR ACTIONS”, always looking to blame everyone and anyone forgetting to look in the mirror.

posted by: streever on December 18, 2009 9:35pm

lawyer u r not:

who did their jobs inNovember? who screamed at me for leaving my house yesterday?

A fire man: badge 144. I walked out of my house & tried to ask him which way to go, because they had barricaded both sides of my street: he screamed at me, “I’m not ASKING YOU I’M TELLING YOU” and threatened to have me arrested. He kept screaming, “GO BACK THE WAY YOU CAME”: Well the way I “Came” was my house, and it turned out that it was perfectly safe for me to walk down the street in one direction. My question to him which he couldn’t ask over his own fevered ranting & raving. ... If that guy was up for a raise I hope he doesn’t get it, because he has zero respect for the community he works with.

Look, I’m not even saying they don’t deserve the money: just that I found the comment “severe mental anguish” funny. I don’t think anyone has “anguish” over not getting a pay raise.

Am I grateful the fire fighters did their job? Yes. Does that mean I can’t hold an opinion? No. You’re an internet bully who doesn’t even use their own name—clever. That way you can attack others based on their life/personality and take no fire yourself.

posted by: Disgusted Taxpayer on December 18, 2009 9:37pm

I must say as a taxpaying citizen of New Haven I am disgusted with the comments made here against these firemen. For those of you who think these men deserve nothing more than the promotions and backpay you are crazy. These men risk their lives day in and day out to protect US and what does this city do to thank them? Hold their earned promotions hostage for 5 years, stall their careers, take money away from them and their families,and who knows what else they went through that we will never know. But all that goes away because the city “did the right thing” and promoted them? PLEASE it took an order from the Supreme Court of the United States for these men to get their due. Apparently some of you do not understand the concept of having your civil rights VIOLATED. You direct your anger at the NH20 when it should be directed at Destefano and his corrupt administration. Destefano and his race based politics are what created this mess, not the NH20. I am willing to bet most of you commenting negatively are Destefano supporters, you voted him in, you know his antics and agenda but continually vote him in. Be careful what you wish for (or vote for) because there are consequences. It is sad that we as taxpayers were ever put in this situation. Had the city “done the right thing” in 2004 we would not even be discussing this. Remember this next time you cast a mayoral vote. You really think these firemen were in it for the money? fame? they wanted what they had stripped from them, and with that they earned compensatory damages. If it were not for damage awards employers would do this all the time. The city wanted to play games and now they will pay, that is how the system works.

posted by: Walt on December 19, 2009 9:15am

Ms Torre, hardly an ambulance chaser—— an outstanding lawyer.

Fought without pay from the Firefighters, for many years, all the way to the Supreme Court, and won .

Could land a top litigating position in a top national law firm , based solely on this record if she wished.

Firemen paid only court and other direct expenses, Her legal fees would have made the suit - cost prohibitively high, and the City would have gotten away with racist discrimination (as many other cities have) if she did not act as she did,

She, and the fighting 20 as well, deserve anything they can get, not only from the City but from the miscreants like the Mayor , the Commissioners and others who tried to take away the firemen’s rights..

Don’t know any of them, (May have talked to one of the 20 before I contributed) but, in my book, they did a service to the whole nation, stopping blatant racist manipulation of test scores, and deserve praise from us, and some $$$$$$$ from the culprits.

posted by: Robin Smith on December 19, 2009 9:50am

Exiled Italian Shill

Well put.

posted by: 2streever and ashill on December 19, 2009 3:08pm

Streev, r u sure it wasn’t a cop. Some people confuse the 2, firemen rarely wear badges for fear of looking like cops. Did they tell u 144? Anyway complain so his behavior can be corrected. It is inexcusable, they work for u and on occasion need to be remonded.

Shill, torre is no ambulance chaser, those titles are reserved for rosen, thompson, bishop and philpot.

posted by: Jake on December 19, 2009 10:58pm

If they were large metal numbers cut out of the badge it was a cop. If they were tiny engraved numbers at the bottom of the badge it was a Firefighter…

posted by: jjlowe332 on December 21, 2009 2:22am

Okay please you won enough already!!! You should sue the fighters who continued to try and halt your promotion and still cry. I can settle your mental anguish right now… you won you got the promotion move on. You have some angry people who will have to continue to work with so deal with that and stop please. Congrats on the verdict.

posted by: Walt on December 21, 2009 7:01am

Disgusted Taxpayer

Well said!

posted by: The Professor on December 21, 2009 10:31am

Anti-Professor says: those guys are saying they have a right to put on evidence showing that they would have been promoted back in 04-06 if the the city hadn’t done what it did. They are not asking for anything they are not entitled to - that’s a Firebirds tactic.

Um, no, Anti-Professor, these firefighters are basically saying that if the test had been certified back when it was initially given, even though they didn’t score high enough for a promotion, they may have, in some counterfactual world, been promoted later on. So basically they’re saying, “Well, we didn’t make it this time but we might’ve made it later so you need to give us money.”

Just so we’re crystal clear, they’re ADMITTING that they didn’t meet the minimum standard of merit for a promotion (setting aside my concerns about just how much we can learn about someone’s qualifications to fight fires from a pen-and-paper test) and STILL asking for money.

So in their brief, they’re admitting that they wouldn’t have been promoted, but arguing that in some counterfactual universe, it’s conceivable that they could have been. So they absolutely ARE asking for something they’re not entitled to. In a counterfactual world, I might have won the lottery or passed my driver license test the first time back in the day, but that doesn’t mean I go and sue the CT Lottery or DMV.

posted by: jay on December 21, 2009 3:28pm

if they have �severe mental anguish and emotional distress�, then they should be tested - they are probably not qualified to be firefighters and be dimissed of their duties.

posted by: taxpayer on December 22, 2009 1:54pm

JAY

LOL

posted by: Alan Felder on December 23, 2009 8:50am

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of “separate but equal”.

posted by: jo on December 23, 2009 8:02pm

I don’t appreciate your refusing to post my response to Walt’s comment about Torre. Perhaps you haven’t posted it because you are too lazy to check the Law Tribune’s site to verify the Torre quote about the Pattis grievance that I included in it. And because it was not particularly complimentary of Torre’s manners. If he can tout her, I can criticize her.

There was nothing vicious, profane or defamatory in it.

If you don’t like the post, maybe you should do more diligent reporting so that information like this doesn’t have to fight its way onto the page through the efforts of a reader.

[Note: We’re happy to discuss our decisions to delete material. But we need your email to discuss it with you. When you not only an anonymous handle, but a phony email address, we can’t contact you to discuss the decision. Feel free to write us at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) .]

posted by: Jo on December 27, 2009 9:48pm

Feel free to discuss it out here in the open. If you did some homework and see that the post was acceptable, there is nothing to hide. If you still feel there was something wrong with it, skip it, because I don’t agree. I’ve read your guidelines. I’ve also been reading newspapers all my life.

I’ve also been reading your website for a long time. You are not exactly a journalist. You are close, you are very much like a journalist.

New Haven Independent

New Haven Independent Login Form