Associated Press
January 17, 2007
NEW YORK -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday ordered a new trial on a Connecticut police sergeant's claim that his Republican boss suspended him on trumped-up charges because he supported Democrats in a local election.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a New Haven, Conn., jury's decision awarding $250,000 to Trumbull (Conn.) Police Department Officer James Arlio, saying the trial judge allowed "irrelevant and prejudicial testimony" about a state board's prior findings in Arlio's favor.
Arlio had sued his acting chief, Marlin Lively, saying that his Republican boss violated his First Amendment rights when he suspended him on bogus charges because he supported local Democratic candidates for office.
The case grew out of a contentious fall 1999 election that divided the police department in Trumbull after the police union endorsed a local Democrat in an election ultimately won by a Republican.
The appeals court said officers known to be Democratic supporters claimed to suffer baseless disciplinary actions and arbitrary scheduling changes. Seven detectives sued the Republican police commissioner, Ann Moore, and Lively, claiming their First Amendment rights to political expression were violated. Those claims were settled out of court in January 2003.
In one instance, the court said, a police officer was suspended after Moore claimed he tried to run her over with his cruiser in the police station parking lot. He was reinstated after a jailhouse surveillance camera showed otherwise.
Arlio brought his own federal lawsuit in November 2003 after Lively claimed Arlio was caught sleeping on the job at 4:30 a.m. on April 13, 2001. Though Arlio was suspended without pay for 22 days, Connecticut's Board of Mediation and Arbitration found the suspension was not for just cause and awarded him back wages.
At trial, a jury awarded Arlio $150,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
Karen Lee Torre, a lawyer for Arlio, said she thought the appeal court's decision was "very well reasoned."
"I cannot argue with it," she said. "I will look forward to retrying the case and convincing a jury to award more money than the other jury did."
She said the jury in the May 2005 trial was unusually frugal because juries in similar cases had awarded between a half million dollars and $5 million in punitive damages.
James E. Coyne, a lawyer for Lively, said he was very happy with the decision and noted that the defense had opposed the introduction of the questionable evidence from the start.
He said he had moved unsuccessfully to have the jury award set aside as excessive and was not overly concerned as to how a second trial might turn out.