MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1

Main Page Court rules against Hodgson in union case
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: kwflatbed

By Steve Urbon
Standard-Times senior correspondent
April 26, 2008 6:00 AM

NEW BEDFORD — A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled against Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson in the case of five guards who accused him of violating their civil rights by punishing them for talking while on duty about a union picket line.
Sheriff Hodgson called the ruling "outrageous" and said it would endanger all public safety agencies if personnel were allowed to violate rules and hide behind their union.
"There is ample evidence that Hodgson suspended the plaintiffs not out of a legitimate concern that their speech compromised safety at the correctional facilities but because of their pro-union activity," the court ruled.
"Furthermore, Hodgson's own actions and pattern of enforcement further undermine his claim of legitimate motives," the panel added.
The ruling, which could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Sheriff Hodgson, awarded legal fees to the five corrections officers. As of early 2007, when the case was argued in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, those legal fees amounted to $172,248, plus $2,482 in expenses. Sheriff Hodgson had no estimate of his own legal expenses to date.
The events in the case occurred in 2000 during a tense period in contract negotiations with the sheriff.
The plaintiffs were corrections officers David Davignon, David Gouveia, David Miller, Edward Moris Jr. and Thomas Presby. The five are represented by New Bedford attorney Philip Beauregard. The sheriff is represented by attorneys Bruce Assad and Gary W. Smith.
Sheriff Hodgson said Friday he met with his legal team and is contemplating the final step to the highest court because the implications, in his view, are so serious.
"This could have far-reaching, devastating effects on all of public safety," he said. "If you are union, you can use that as an excuse to be forgiven for not following the rules within our institution."
One officer charged that an investigation about a security door he left open was not so much about the door but about his union involvement, and the court agreed. Sheriff Hodgson insists the open door left the public at risk, and he would have been wrong not to investigate it.
"If an inmate got out that door and raped someone's daughter or assaulted and killed one of their children, I assure you that you wouldn't care whether (the corrections officers) were union or non-union," he said.
The court disagreed with Sheriff Hodgson and said that "a reasonable jury could have found that (Officer) Presby would not have been suspended but for his speech at the roll call (about a union picket line). Although Hodgson asserts that Officer Presby was suspended because he left a facility door open, the record contains substantial circumstantial evidence indicating otherwise."
The record "bolsters Presby's theory that Hodgson used the door incident as a pretext in order to retaliate against Presby for his protected speech," the court ruled.
And while Sheriff Hodgson contended that it was against prison rules to discuss union matters at roll call, even briefly, the court said there is no evidence of such a rule.
More than that, it said, "although asserting that discussion of union matters is particularly divisive and poses a serious risk of disruption, Hodgson used roll call to personally discuss these same union matters.
"Relatedly, if Hodgson were so concerned that any non-work-focused speech would create such serious distractions and risks, we think it is more than curious that he would allow employees to discuss things such as parades and sports without punishment."
Sheriff Hodgson, again calling the ruling "outrageous," noted that the court awarded no damages beyond attorneys fees, and said the ruling "took over a year, and it's obvious why. They've gone to great pains to craft the decision in a way that completely ignored the evidence in the case."

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/...NEWS/804260326

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

Sheriff Hodgson called the ruling "outrageous"

Yeah...outrageous;

It always amuses me that tyrants throw a hissy fit when someone of higher authority tells them "NO".

How much is this Quixote-like appeal going to cost the taxpayers of Bristol County?

Posted by: phuzz01

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

"Relatedly, if Hodgson were so concerned that any non-work-focused speech would create such serious distractions and risks, we think it is more than curious that he would allow employees to discuss things such as parades and sports without punishment."

Did anyone else find that part hilarious? The Sheriff never met a parade that he didn't like...

Posted by: 94c

To all you MassCops members who criticize my sheriff's posts, maybe with a little reading comprehension, you may someday get a clue.

He would take over entire police departments if given the opportunity.

But then again, he couldn't be as successful as he is without his minion hacks.

And no, I have never worked nor applied for a position in Hackville.

It's all about UNION.

Posted by: csauce777

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

How much is this Quixote-like appeal going to cost the taxpayers of Bristol County?

He has to get the US Supreme Court to take the case first, and that's no small task...

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

To all you MassCops members who criticize my sheriff's posts, maybe with a little reading comprehension, you may someday get a clue.

He would take over entire police departments if given the opportunity.

But then again, he couldn't be as successful as he is without his minion hacks.

And no, I have never worked nor applied for a position in Hackville.

It's all about UNION.

Sheriff Hodgson, again calling the ruling "outrageous," noted that the court awarded no damages beyond attorneys fees, and said the ruling "took over a year, and it's obvious why. They've gone to great pains to craft the decision in a way that completely ignored the evidence in the case."

Reading comprehension?
I believe he has made his thoughts about a fact-of-law review quite clear!!!

"Outrageous" and "completely ignored the evidence" are the main points of his thesis. 94C you can't be serious????????

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by csauce777

He has to get the US Supreme Court to take the case first, and that's no small task...

Have you ever seen a brief to the US Supreme Court? To even ask the court is going to occupy the time of a lot of lawyers for an extended period, cost a holy fortune, and for what? Because a hack doesn't want to admit the law DOES apply to his little fiefdom?

Posted by: BPD3352

94C is 100% correct! This guy is dangerous!

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPD3352

94C is 100% correct! This guy is dangerous!

I could come up with a half-dozen members of MassCops who would work for him if they had the money.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

I could come up with a half-dozen members of MassCops who would work for him if they had the money.

I'll start....your bastard son, ninety_four_c.

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

I'll start....your bastard son, ninety_four_c.

That ain't right. If one thing I learned from Harry several years ago is that you don't bring family into it.

I said it before and I'll say it again. It was a bad incident in a trailer park many years ago after only drinking two beers.

If he had just listened, he could have been on the fire department by now.

Posted by: BB-59

To clue everyone in, this is going to the Supreme Court.

Ask MCOFU how much they have spent in legal fees in Bristol over the years.

And it is not about union but oversite and accountability.

Posted by: csauce777

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

I'm agreeing with you...I'm just saying, the chance that the Supreme Court will take the case is probably pretty slim.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by csauce777

I'm agreeing with you...I'm just saying, the chance that the Supreme Court will take the case is probably pretty slim.

I'll never take a bet on which cases the USSC will accept. They'll surprise you more often than not.

My point is that even asking the USSC to look at a case is going to be a huge expense for taxpayers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BB-59

And it is not about union but oversite and accountability.

It seems to be about a megalomaniac who can't stand being told "No, you can't do that".

Posted by: kwflatbed

Hodgson wants civil rights case reheard

By Steve Urbon
Standard-Times senior correspondent
May 10, 2008 6:00 AM

Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson has asked the full panel of the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to rehear the case of five corrections officers who claim that the sheriff violated their civil rights over union talk while on the job.
The appeal claims that an April decision by a three-judge appeal court panel conflicts with two other federal court decisions that give public safety administrators the benefit of the doubt when they punish speech that they deem disruptive.
Philip N. Beauregard, attorney for the five officers, accused the sheriff of a "double standard," pointing out that the three-judge panel chided the sheriff for punishing officers for union talk at roll call, but engaging in anti-union talk at roll call when it suited him. He plans to oppose the sheriff's request within 10 days.
"There was a double standard, and the court of appeals took note of that," he said, accusing the sheriff of using prison security as an excuse for punishing union activity during a time of tense contact negotiations.
Mr. Hodgson called the appeals court's ruling against him "outrageous," saying that it would put public safety at risk because police, fire and prison officials wouldn't be able to keep order and discipline because of the cover of the unions.
His lawyers cited two cases in which federal courts deferred to the judgment of public safety officials, and his plea for the full nine-judge court is based on the need for consistency.
"The well-recognized need of corrections officials to preserve order and authority in prison settings, as well as the judicially recognized heightened interest of law enforcement and other public safety agencies in regulating the speech and activities of its employees, combine to make the issue of deference to a public employer's decisions in regulating speech in the context of a public safety organization, such as a sheriff's office, one of exceptional importance which merits the consideration of the full court," said the new appeal, filed Thursday.
The three-judge panel had ruled, however, that "If Hodgson were so concerned that any non-work-related speech would create such serious distractions and risks, we think it is more than curious that he would allow employees to discuss things such as parades and sports without punishment."
The case stemmed from the sheriff's 2000 actions against corrections officers David Davignon, David Miller, Edward Moris Jr., David Gouveia and Thomas Presby.
The appeals court last month upheld the award of $17,980 in damages along with attorneys' fees for the five, which have topped $220,000, according to Mr. Beauregard.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/...NEWS/805100340

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

The appeals court last month upheld the award of $17,980 in damages along with attorneys' fees for the five, which have topped $220,000, according to Mr. Beauregard.

Yet, Sheriff Quixote keeps tilting at the windmills with taxpayer money.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

The three-judge panel had ruled, however, that "If Hodgson were so concerned that any non-work-related speech would create such serious distractions and risks, we think it is more than curious that he would allow employees to discuss things such as parades and sports without punishment."

Priceless.

ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108