GREGORY LEWANDOWSKI v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & Another. ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
    23.0, as appearing in 
    97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017
     (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
    as amended by 
    73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001
     [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
    and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
    decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
    court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
    A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
    2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
    above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 
    71 Mass. App. Ct. 258
    , 260
    n.4 (2008).
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
    APPEALS COURT
    21-P-1096
    GREGORY LEWANDOWSKI
    vs.
    CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & another.1
    MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
    The plaintiff appeals from a Superior Court judgment
    affirming the decision of the Civil Service Commission
    (commission) which, in turn, affirmed the town of Charlton's
    (town or Charlton) termination of the plaintiff's employment in
    the Charlton Police Department (CPD).           The plaintiff primarily
    argues that he was deprived of due process because the stated
    reasons for his termination were pretextual, and because his
    firing was instead motivated by personal animus or bias against
    him.    He also contends that the commissioner who presided over
    the hearing should have reviewed, in camera, evidence over which
    the town claimed the attorney-client privilege.             We affirm.
    1   Town of Charlton.
    Background.   Prior to his termination, the plaintiff served
    on the CPD during two relevant periods.   He first served as a
    part-time auxiliary police officer from July 2002 to December
    2003.   After a brief stint at another police department, the
    plaintiff rejoined CPD as a full-time officer in September 2005.
    The plaintiff was promoted to lieutenant in July 2013, and
    served in that role until his termination in October of 2018.
    The plaintiff's termination followed a months-long
    investigation, the impetus of which was the plaintiff's receipt
    of a so-called "longevity payment" in November 2017.     As
    relevant here, the town once paid "longevity payments" to
    eligible CPD employees under a collective bargaining agreement
    (and a later memorandum of understanding) (collectively, CBA)
    between the town and the Charlton Police Alliance.     As of July
    2016, the CBA provided for once-yearly payments of $200 to full-
    time employees who had reached ten years of service.     The yearly
    payments increased if the employee reached additional longevity
    milestones -- e.g., to $400 after fifteen years of service, and
    to $1,000 after twenty.   Under this structure, the plaintiff
    received his first $200 longevity payment in July 2016, and his
    second in July 2017.2
    2 Although the CBA did not entitle lieutenants to longevity
    payments, the plaintiff received such payments based on CPD
    practice.
    2
    In October 2017, the town added a new bylaw providing for
    yearly longevity payments to "any eligible employee," defined as
    "[o]ne who is currently employed by the [t]own and who is
    regularly scheduled to work a minimum of twenty . . . hours per
    week."3   As a result, in November 2017 the town's assistant human
    resources director circulated a "longevity chart" to a group of
    town employees (including the plaintiff), listing each eligible
    employee's start date, length of service, and the payment they
    were due that year.    The chart listed the plaintiff's start date
    as July 2002 (when he started as a part-time auxiliary officer)
    and showed that he was due a $200 payment based on fourteen
    years of service.     The plaintiff thereafter received a $200
    longevity payment in November 2017, his second of that year.
    In December 2017, CPD Chief Graham Maxfield discovered that
    the plaintiff had received two longevity payments in 2017, and
    asked the plaintiff for an explanation.    The plaintiff claimed
    that he received the second payment because he had reached an
    anniversary with the town.    In a subsequent written response
    (which Chief Maxfield had directed the plaintiff to provide),
    the plaintiff explained that he had received his first ten-year
    longevity payment in July 2016, that "the town had [him]
    3 Under the 2017 bylaw, the ten-year and fifteen-year payments
    remained $200 and $400, respectively. Unlike the CBA,
    lieutenants were covered by the bylaw. See note 2, supra.
    3
    reaching [his] fifteen . . . year" anniversary in July 2017, and
    that he believed the November 2017 payment "was an adjustment"
    for hitting that milestone.   This confused Maxfield, who did not
    understand how the plaintiff was eligible for a fifteen-year
    payment in July 2017, when he had received his first ten-year
    payment the prior year.   After further inquiry, Maxfield learned
    that the plaintiff had not begun his full-time service with CPD
    until 2005, prompting him to ask the plaintiff how he had
    learned that he had reached his fifteen-year anniversary.    The
    plaintiff pointed to the longevity chart, which showed fourteen
    (not fifteen) years of service.
    Also in December 2017, the plaintiff sought and obtained
    forty additional hours of vacation time based on the 2002 start
    date shown in the longevity chart -- in the process representing
    to Maxfield (in response to Maxfield's question) that he had
    been at the CPD for fifteen years.    Around that same time, the
    plaintiff contested the results of an audit of his available
    sick leave time, contending that his own audit showed that he
    had 1,186 hours available, not 904 hours as the town contended.
    Although Maxfield initially accepted the plaintiff's number, the
    town subsequently discovered that the plaintiff's audit had not
    accounted for sick days that the plaintiff had taken between
    2005 and the beginning of July 2008.    Sick leave taken before
    July of 2008 was not recorded in the town's computer system, but
    4
    only in physical books -- a fact of which the plaintiff was
    aware due to his oversight of prior CPD sick leave audits.
    Eventually, in reviewing the circumstances that led to the
    plaintiff's November 2017 longevity payment, Maxfield learned
    that the plaintiff's start date in the longevity chart
    corresponded with his part-time auxiliary service, and not when
    he began as a full-time officer.     Maxfield accordingly directed
    the plaintiff to remedy the extra longevity payment and
    increased vacation time with the human resources department.
    While the plaintiff asked the human resources department to
    deduct forty hours of vacation time, he did not raise the
    longevity payment.   Maxfield subsequently learned that the
    plaintiff's service to the town had not been continuous -- that
    is, there was a gap between his service as a part-time auxiliary
    officer and when he was rehired full-time.     Believing that the
    plaintiff had deliberately misled him, Maxfield resolved to
    investigate the matter further, and placed the plaintiff on
    administrative leave in April 2018.
    In September 2018, after Maxfield had completed his
    investigation, there was a disciplinary hearing before a hearing
    officer appointed by the town.   Based on the hearing officer's
    recommendations, the town's board of selectmen voted to
    terminate the plaintiff for just cause, citing, among other
    things, his improper receipt of two longevity payments in 2017;
    5
    his knowing use of an incorrect hire date to secure additional
    vacation time; his intentional inflation of accrued sick leave;
    and his lack of candor during the investigation.
    The plaintiff appealed the town's decision to the
    commission pursuant to G. L. c. 31, § 43, and a hearing was held
    before a commissioner.   The plaintiff argued that his
    termination was the product of disparate treatment, pointing to
    other town employees, including Maxfield, who had received
    inflated longevity payments but who were not fired.   The
    plaintiff also argued that the investigation and his ultimate
    termination were motivated by personal animus and bias, and that
    the investigation was intended to manufacture a pretext to
    accomplish his termination.4   The plaintiff claimed that Maxfield
    had a personal animus toward him because, over a decade earlier,
    the plaintiff had reported to a prior CPD chief that Maxfield,
    then a sergeant, was encouraging auxiliary officers to refuse
    paid details to show solidarity with the police union.
    The commission affirmed the town's decision as supported by
    just cause under G. L. c. 31, § 43.   The commission found that
    4 The plaintiff argued that an e-mail between Maxfield and town
    counsel -- which the town withheld as privileged -- would have
    evidenced the pretextual nature of the investigation. Maxfield
    sent the e-mail on the day that he placed the plaintiff on
    leave, referencing in a separate e-mail to the town
    administrator and human resources director that he had
    "forwarded" to town counsel a copy of the letter placing the
    plaintiff on leave.
    6
    the evidence failed to show that the plaintiff's termination was
    pretextual, or motivated by animus or bias.     The commission also
    concluded that, although the plaintiff's acceptance of the
    second 2017 longevity payment did not alone support his
    termination, the plaintiff's additional conduct -- including his
    efforts to obtain extra vacation time, his attempts to secure
    inflated sick leave, and his lack of candor -- justified the
    town's decision.   A judge of the Superior Court affirmed the
    commission's decision, and this appeal followed.
    Discussion.    On appeal, the plaintiff primarily contends
    that he was unconstitutionally deprived of his employment
    without due process of law.    The plaintiff does not challenge
    the commission's findings directly, but rather urges that the
    town's investigation, and decision to fire him, was borne of
    personal animus and thus, allegedly, deprived him of a
    meaningful opportunity to be heard.    The plaintiff also argues
    that the hearing commissioner erred by not reviewing in camera
    an e-mail between Maxfield and town counsel concerning the
    plaintiff's administrative leave, as to which the town claimed
    attorney-client privilege.    We review the commission's decision
    under G. L. c. 31, § 44.     Accordingly, the decision "will be
    upheld unless it is 'unsupported by substantial
    evidence[,] . . . arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of
    discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.'"
    7
    Boston Police Dep't v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 
    483 Mass. 461
    , 469
    (2019), quoting G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).        "This standard of
    review is highly deferential to the agency on questions of fact
    and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom" (citation omitted).
    Brackett v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 
    447 Mass. 233
    , 242 (2006).
    As to the plaintiff's due process argument, we agree that
    "[t]enured civil servants," such as the plaintiff, "have a
    property interest in their employment, and must be afforded
    basic due process protections in . . . disciplinary proceedings"
    (citation omitted).   Worcester v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 
    87 Mass. App. Ct. 120
    , 124 (2015).   Those "[c]onstitutional safeguards
    require" that a person in the plaintiff's position receive (1)
    notice of the charges against him, (2) (generally), a
    pretermination hearing, (3) "an explanation of the [town]'s
    evidence," and (4) "an opportunity . . . to present [his] side
    of the story."   Id. at 124-125.       He is also entitled to an
    impartial hearing.    See Harris v. Board of Trustees of State
    Colleges, 
    405 Mass. 515
    , 521 (1989).        Here, the plaintiff has no
    argument as to the fairness of the adjudicatory process itself;
    the plaintiff does not (and cannot) complain that he was
    deprived of notice, of a pretermination hearing, or of an
    explanation of the town's evidence -- nor does the plaintiff
    challenge the impartiality of the hearing or the commissioner.
    Instead, the thrust of the plaintiff's argument appears to be
    8
    that the process was necessarily "tainted" by a "purely
    pretextual" investigation that was motivated by animus and bias.
    We do not agree that due process was not afforded here.
    To begin, the plaintiff's due process theory is based on
    the questionable premise that a biased investigation necessarily
    amounts to a due process violation.   The plaintiff cites no case
    for this proposition, and there is some case law to the
    contrary.   See Gonzalez-Droz v. Gonzalez-Colon, 
    660 F.3d 1
    , 15
    (1st Cir. 2011) ("investigat[or] . . ., unlike a decisionmaker,
    does not have to be neutral").5   But in any event, here the
    plaintiff was able to argue before the commission that the
    investigation and his termination were motivated by bias and
    animus, and that the stated reasons for his termination were
    pretextual.   He thus had ample opportunity to "present [his]
    side of the story" (citation omitted).   See Worcester, 87 Mass.
    App. Ct. at 125.   The commission rejected those arguments on the
    facts, concluding that the evidence failed to show that the
    termination was "based on any . . . bias" or that the
    investigation was "a pretext to bring about the [plaintiff's]
    termination."   The commission found, to the contrary, that the
    termination was based upon the plaintiff's multiple instances of
    5 Although an investigator's bias might give rise to rights under
    State law, see Cambridge v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 
    43 Mass. App. Ct. 300
    , 304 (1997), the plaintiff does not press such an
    argument on appeal.
    9
    untruthfulness.   We give deference to such factual findings,
    Brackett, 
    447 Mass. at 242
    , which the plaintiff does not
    challenge as unsupported by the evidence.    See Matter of
    Eisenhauer, 
    426 Mass. 448
    , 453-454 (1998) (no due process
    violation absent evidence of biased decisionmakers).
    This result is unaffected by the plaintiff's contention
    that he was subject to "inequitable treatment among similarly
    situated individuals" -- that is, other employees also received
    improper longevity payments but were not fired.   Here again, the
    plaintiff made this argument to the commission, which found that
    the plaintiff was "distinguish[able]," because "the record d[id]
    not show that those other employees engaged in multiple
    instances of untruthfulness," whereas the plaintiff took several
    actions that "called into question his honesty" and that
    "appeared designed to obfuscate."    Given those findings, there
    is no "basis to believe that the discharge penalty unfairly
    singled out [the plaintiff] for punishment more harsh or unusual
    than otherwise imposed in like circumstances."    Police Comm'r of
    Boston v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 
    39 Mass. App. Ct. 594
    , 601 (1995).
    See Moore v. Executive Office of the Trial Court, 
    487 Mass. 839
    ,
    850 (2021).
    In a related argument, the plaintiff contends that the
    hearing commissioner erred by not reviewing, in camera, an e-
    mail that Maxfield sent to town counsel.    The plaintiff argues
    10
    that the e-mail either was not privileged, or was subject to a
    privilege exception, and that the e-mail would have supported
    his pretext argument.    The town argues, and a judge of the
    Superior Court concluded, that the commissioner did not err by
    not reviewing the document.    We agree.
    The plaintiff requested the e-mail during prehearing
    discovery, apparently learning of its existence through review
    of a separate communication.    The town did not produce the e-
    mail, and the commissioner denied the plaintiff's motion to
    compel its production.     The plaintiff nonetheless renewed his
    request during the hearing.    Outside counsel for the town
    represented that he had reviewed the e-mail, and expressed his
    belief that it was privileged.6    Plaintiff's counsel asked the
    commissioner to review the document in camera, but the town
    objected.   Plaintiff's counsel then responded:   "If you don't
    want to supply the document, then we're entitled to an adverse
    inference."   The commissioner then stated, before taking the
    matter under advisement:
    "Why don't you think about it and whether or not you want
    to have an in camera review. Take that in consideration of
    whether you want to do an in camera review or not. I don't
    know whether it's a big deal or not. But think about it,
    and then let me know, and I'll make a decision on it
    later."
    6 Outside counsel was not the "town counsel" to whom Maxfield
    sent the e-mail in question.
    11
    The issue was not raised again at the hearing.   In the
    plaintiff's posthearing submission (a draft "proposed
    decision"), the plaintiff noted his request to review the e-
    mail, but ultimately proposed that the commission "draw [an]
    adverse inference . . . that the evidence if produced would be
    prejudicial to the [t]own."
    Under the circumstances, the plaintiff waived the argument
    he now pursues.   See Carey v. New England Organ Bank, 
    446 Mass. 270
    , 285 (2006) (issues not argued below waived on appeal).
    Although the plaintiff initially requested an in camera review,
    after discussion the commissioner left to the plaintiff whether
    he wanted to pursue the argument.    The plaintiff did not follow
    up.   Although it is true that the plaintiff's posthearing
    submission noted the request for in camera review, the plaintiff
    did not propose any resolution other than asking for an adverse
    inference.   Where this was the plaintiff's only follow up to the
    12
    commissioner's clear direction, the commissioner cannot be
    faulted for not reviewing the e-mail.7
    Judgment affirmed.
    By the Court (Rubin,
    Englander & Brennan, JJ.8),
    Clerk
    Entered:   June 1, 2023.
    7 We also note that the plaintiff has marshalled no evidence
    supporting his theory that the e-mail evidenced pretext. Under
    the circumstances, asking for an adverse inference may well have
    been a strategic choice. The plaintiff and his counsel may have
    thought the better course was to ask for an adverse inference,
    rather than risk the possibility that in camera review would
    result in nothing -- or actually harm the plaintiff's case.
    8 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
    13