The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
________________________________________________
)
CHRISTOPHER BRUCE and, )
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, )
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 18-40037-TSH
)
)
)
WORCESTER REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, )
CENTRAL MASS TRANSIT MANAGEMENT, INC., )
DAVID TRABUCCO, JAMES PARKER and )
JONATHAN CHURCH, )
Defendants. )
________________________________________________)
ORDER: Preliminary Injunction
June 18, 2018
Hillman, D.J.
A hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 11)(“PI
Motion”) was held on June 13, 2018. The Court has considered the PI Motion and supporting
memoranda (including the reply brief), the Defendants’ opposition, and the parties’ proffers and
arguments made at the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the PI Motion is denied.
Background
Plaintiff, Christopher Bruce (“Bruce”), was terminated from his position as a bus driver
for the Defendants’ Worcester Regional Transport Authority (“WRTA”) and Central Mass
Transit Management, Inc. (“CMTM”). WRTA owns and manages the public transit system in
and around Worcester, Massachusetts. CMTM has a contract with WRTA to run the day to day
operation of buses owned by the WRTA. Bruce was a bus driver for WRTA/CMTM1; he had
worked for the WRTA and/or related entities for over forty years. At the time of his firing,
Bruce’s duties consisted mainly of driving empty, out-of-service buses to and from Worcester’s
central bus station (the “Hub”). Recently, WRTA Advisory Board members discussed the
possibility of making severe cuts to WRTA bus service, which would result in a loss of jobs for
bus drivers, such as Bruce. Consequently, WRTA, CMTM and ATU Local 22, the union that
represents the bus drivers, have an interest in increasing funding for the WRTA. Bruce serves as
president of ATU Local 22.
WRTA/CMTM maintains employment policies governing the terms and conditions of
WRTA/CMTM bus drivers’ employment. Pursuant to those policies, disciplinary infractions are
categorized as either “Class I” (most serious), “Class II” (very serious), and “Class III” (less
serious). Employees are subject to suspension the first time they commit a Class II infraction
and discharge if they commit a second Class II infraction.
WRTA/CMTM’s employee policies prohibit employees form “Making unauthorized
Statements to the Media,” and further provides that “[a]ll statements in which an employee is
representing CMTM or WRTA must be pre-approved by the General Manager.” Bruce had been
contacted by Telemundo, an American Spanish language television network, regarding the
proposed service cuts. The camera crew for Telemundo arrived while Bruce was still working.
He suggested that they wait to talk when he was through with work, but the Telemundo crew
wanted to get started right away. At the time, Bruce had been instructed to bring a bus that was
in good working order from the WRTA maintenance facility to the Hub to be placed into service
1 There is a dispute over what entity actually employed Bruce—WRTA or CMTM (or predecessors to
CMTM). For present purposes that issue need not be resolved and therefore, for the remainder of this Order, I will
refer to Bruce’s employer as WRTA/CMTM.
and to retrieve and return to the maintenance facility another bus located at the Hub that was in
need of service. Bruce decided to accommodate the Telemundo interview before completing his
assigned task. Thus, Bruce completed the Telemundo interview while he was still on duty.
Moreover, he permitted the camera crew to film him, while in his work uniform, being
interviewed while he driving an out-of-service bus around the Hub at a slow speed.
A news segment aired on Telemundo that night which included the interview with Bruce;
the news segment lasted only a short time. Bruce is identified in the video (in Spanish) as the
President of the local union. Bruce was suspended the next day. Bruce received a written notice
of suspension from CMTM Operation’s Manager, David Trabucco, which informed him that he
was alleged to have violated three employment policies: “Failure to Follow Work Orders or
Procedures”; “Making Unauthorized Statements to the Media (Newspapers, TV, Radio, etc.):
ALL [sic] statements in which an employee is representing CMTM or WRTA must be pre-
approved by the General Manager.”; and “Willful or Deliberate Violation of or Disregard of
Safety Rules or Common Safety Practices.” The notice went on to specify that Bruce’s interview
with Telemundo, which was conducted without approval of the General Manager, violated
WRTA/CMTM policy. Moreover, the letter noted that upon viewing the Telemundo segment, it
was evident that during the course of the interview, which was conducted on a moving bus being
driven by Bruce, he had violated several safety rules.
At the time of the suspension, Bruce had been operating under a so-called “Last Chance
Agreement.” That is, he had entered an agreement with WRTA/CMTM regarding a prior Class
II violation (which had not been his first disciplinary infraction). In return for Bruce entering the
Last Chance Agreement, WRTA/CMTM agreed to rescind his February 15, 2017 termination
and reinstate his employment. Local ATU 22 also approved the Last Chance Agreement. In the
Last Chance Agreement, Bruce and Local ATU 22 agreed to “waive any and all rights they may
have presently or in the future to file or assert any claim, complaint, grievance, appeal to
arbitration or other action in any forum of any kind in regard to any further disciplinary action
including termination invoked by the Company [WRTA/CMTM] pursuant to this Agreement.”
On February 13, 2018, James Parker (“Parker”), General Manager of CMTM, sent Bruce a
termination letter firing him for having committed unspecified “Class II infractions.” Parker’s
letter also banned Bruce from all WRTA property. However, he is permitted to go on WRTA
property, with advance notice, to conduct union business (Bruce remains president of Local ATU
22).
Bruce and Amalgamated Transit Union have filed suit against the WRTA, CMTM,
Trabucco, Parker and Jonathan Church alleging claims for: deprivation of his First Amendment
Free Speech Rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983; violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights
Act, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 12, §11I; and tortious interference with employment relationship.
Discussion
In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the Court must weigh four
factors:
‘(1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm
if the injunction is denied; (3) the balance of relevant impositions, i.e., the
hardship to the nonmovant if enjoined as contrasted with the hardship to the
movant if no injunction issues; and (4) the effect (if any) of the court’s ruling on
the public interest.’
Charlesbank Equity Fund II v. Blinds to Go, Inc., 370 F.3d 151, 162 (1st Cir. 2004)(citation to
quoted case omitted). “The sine qua non of this four-part inquiry is likelihood of success on the
merits: if the moving party cannot demonstrate that he is likely to succeed in his quest, the
remaining factors become matters of idle curiosity.” New Comm. Wireless Services, Inc., v.
SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002). In this case, Bruce will face significant, but
perhaps not insurmountable, hurdles in establishing that he was unlawfully terminated for
exercising his First Amendment Right to free speech. Nonetheless, it is not necessary for me to
address whether he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. This is because I find that he
has failed to establish the potential for irreparable harm if injunctive relief is denied. More
specifically, if he prevails, Bruce will be entitled to monetary compensation (including back pay)
and reinstatement and therefore, can be made whole. When I pointed this out to Plaintiffs’
counsel, he suggested that Bruce’s inability to adequately fulfill his obligation as union president
constitutes irreparable harm. More specifically, he stated that because Bruce is barred from
WRTA property, union members are unable to adequately communicate with him. However, as
pointed out be the Defendants, Bruce’s termination later expressly permits him to go on WRTA
property to conduct union business with advance notice. Bruce has not proffered any evidence
that he has been denied access to WRTA property to conduct union business. On the record
before me, I find that the Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law and have not established that
Bruce will suffer irreparable harm. Accordingly, the PI Motion is denied.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 11) is denied.
So Ordered:
/s/ Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
DISTRICT JUDGE