Quezada v. City of Providence, Rhode Island

The plaintiff, Clifton Peasley (plaintiff or Peasley), appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his action for declaratory relief, which sought, inter alia, a decree that he was entitled to back pay. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal pursuant to the election of remedies doctrine. In this respect, it was undisputed that before commencing the action for declaratory relief, the plaintiff had filed a grievance seeking back pay, which proceeding remained pending in arbitration. Peasley's efforts to compare the provisions of the Teachers' Tenure Act with the landmark antidiscrimination protections discussed in Weeks v. 735 Putnam Pike Operations, LLC, 85 A.3d 1147 (R.I. 2014), was unavailing. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed.

The plaintiff, Boghos Terzian, appealed from a June 12, 2015 final judgment entered following a bench decision in Providence County Superior Court, which granted the motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Public Service Employees' Local Union Number 1033 (the Union) and James J. Lombardi, in his capacity as Treasurer for the City of Providence. Mr. Terzian contended on appeal that the hearing justice erred in granting defendants' motions for summary judgment because, in his view, the City of Providence could not suspend and ultimately terminate him for off-duty conduct and because the Union did not comply with its duty to fairly represent him. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Terzian had waived his arguments on appeal because he failed to adequately brief them. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which certified a question to the Supreme Court in accordance with Article I, Rule 6(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. The certified question reads as follows: "Does Section 28-5-7(6) of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-1 et seq. ('FEPA'), provide for the individual liability of an employee of a defendant employer and, if so, under what circumstances?" The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that G.L. 1956 § 28-5-7(6) does not provide for the individual liability of an employee of a defendant employer. The Court remanded the case to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island for further proceedings.

This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which certified a question to the Supreme Court in accordance with Article I, Rule 6(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. The certified question reads as follows: "Does Section 28-5-7(6) of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-1 et seq. ('FEPA'), provide for the individual liability of an employee of a defendant employer and, if so, under what circumstances?" The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that G.L. 1956 § 28-5-7(6) does not provide for the individual liability of an employee of a defendant employer. The Court remanded the case to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island for further proceedings.