Summary
**Alston v. Town of Brookline, 1st Cir. 2021** – This case addresses claim preclusion under Massachusetts law, holding that a prior state-court judgment against a municipality does not bar § 1983 claims against individual defendants sued in their personal capacities, nor does it bar claims against the municipality based on materially different post-judgment conduct. The court also held that a state Civil Service Commission decision finding pretextual reasons for termination is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) and can create a genuine issue of material fact on a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim. Summary judgment was affirmed on equal protection claims for lack of similarly situated comparators and on § 1981 claims (exclusive remedy is § 1983), but vacated on retaliation claims against the Town, Board, and certain individual defendants where qualified immunity was not established.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in applying claim preclusion to bar consideration of pre-2014 facts.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on equal protection and section 1981 claims.
- Whether the district court erred in excluding the Civil Service Commission's decision and findings.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on section 1983 retaliation claims against the Town, Board, and individual defendants.
- Whether the district court erred in denying the motion to void non-cooperation clauses.
Holdings
- Claim preclusion does not bar claims against individual defendants in their individual capacities, nor does it bar claims against the Town and official capacity defendants because the claims are not identical to those in the state suit. The district court's temporal limitation was error.
- Affirmed. Alston failed to identify similarly situated non-black firefighters who were treated differently, and section 1981 claims against state actors are barred.
- Vacated and remanded. The district court abused its discretion in excluding the Civil Service Commission's decision, and there is a genuine issue of fact as to pretext.
- Affirmed as to DeBow, Murphy, DeWitt, and Goldstein because no adverse employment action; vacated as to Daly, Greene, Heller, Franco, and Wishinsky because genuine issue of fact on pretext and qualified immunity not established on this record.
- Affirmed. The clauses are not against public policy because they allow cooperation with government agencies and pursuant to subpoena.
Key quotations
“Claim preclusion is strong medicine and should not casually be dispensed.” (20)
“The bottom line is that Alston's suspension without pay and his subsequent firing go significantly beyond the nucleus of operative facts alleged in the state-court case, both in time and scope.” (28)
“No other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly calls to mind our country's long and brutal struggle to overcome racism and discrimination against African-Americans.” (46)
Factual background
Alston, a black firefighter, received a voicemail from his supervisor containing a racial slur. He complained, and the supervisor received a two-tour suspension. Alston faced shunning and retaliation. He filed discrimination charges and a lawsuit. The town placed him on leave and later terminated him. The Massachusetts Civil Service Commission found the termination pretextual and reinstated him.
Procedural history
Alston filed a civil rights action in federal district court in 2015, alleging discrimination and retaliation. The district court dismissed some claims and granted summary judgment for defendants. Alston appealed. The state court had previously dismissed a related suit with prejudice, and the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission later reinstated Alston. The federal district court applied claim preclusion to limit the scope of facts, but the First Circuit vacated that ruling.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.