Vermont FD Settles First Amendment Suit Over Confidentiality Policy
A suit filed by two Vermont firefighters who were terminated for refusing to sign a confidentiality agreement aimed at silencing their dissent have been reinstated and their federal lawsuit settled for $60,000.
Former Fire Chief Christopher Gonyeau and veteran firefighter Heather Grimm were terminated from the Georgia Fire Department in 2016 because they refused to sign a confidentiality agreement. Both were part-time employees who had been raising safety concerns about overloaded apparatus, maintenance problems, and related matters.
In an effort to silence their complaints, the town came up with a confidentiality policy that prohibited members from sending any “written, auditory and/or visual messages” that are “relative to the Town of Georgia Fire Department”.
Chief Gonyeau and FF Grimm refused to sign an agreement to abide by the policy, and were terminated. They contested their termination and filed suit in US District Court, alleging the policy constituted a prior restraint on their First Amendment rights, as well as due process and 4th Amendment violations.
The settlement came about through a offer of judgment submitted by the town’s attorneys, which Chief Gonyeau and FF Grimm accepted. An offer of judgment essentially is a formal offer to settle a case, which if turned down, puts the refusing party in a difficult situation. If a party refuses an offer of judgment and the judgment obtained is less favorable at trial, the refusing party “must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.” See Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The settlement calls for Chief Gonyeau and FF Grimm to be reinstated to the department, the payment of $60,000 in damages, costs and attorneys fees, and the rescinding of the confidentiality agreement.
Here is a copy of the Offer of Judgment: Grimm v Georgia OFFER OF JUDGMENT
Here is a copy of the complaint: Grimm v Georgia
Here is a copy of the proposed confidentiality agreement: Grimm v Georgia Confidentiality Agreement
Note: if you have a problem with firefighters’ voicing discontent, this is not a good way to try to address it!!!
Yeah, I could see how the firefighters might think the policy was a little overly-broad. Obviously, the Chief and Select Board didn’t have an attorney check the draft before they implemented it.
You mentioned that refusing an offer of judgment “puts the refusing party in a difficult situation.” What if the offer is obviously either a sham or ridiculously insufficient? For instance, if — hypothetically — the town had offered $500.00, and the FFs refused, would they still be in that “difficult situation”? Or would it be up to the eventual trier of fact to determine that it was ludicrous, and award the plaintiffs a reasonable amount?
The rule is – if you put the other side through the expense of litigation after they made you an offer to settle (thru an offer of judgment)… can you don’t get a better deal than what was offered you will bear the other side’s costs… It is rarely used (I use it whenever I can but it is rarely used). There is no exception for ludicrous offers… in fact if the offer was truly ludicrous then Rule 68 would not be a concern… but if a part rejected an offer that they considered to be ludicrous and at trial they get LESS THAN THE LUDICROUS OFFER… they will bear the other side’s costs. The issue in some jurisdictions is whether costs includes attorneys fees… the better rule is it does… but some court says it means court related expenses (court costs)…
Well, that makes sense. If you make an offer that I think is ludicrous and we go to trial, and the trier of fact agrees with you, it makes sense I bear the costs. But if the offer truly IS ludicrous, and the trier agrees with me, would you then bear my costs?