UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

PATRICK W. GAYNOR :
:
VS. : CIVIL ACTION NO.
:
CITY OF MERIDEN and :
JEFFRY COSSETTE : JULY 3, 2017

COMPLAINT

1. This is an action to redress the deprivation of rights secured to the

plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of

Connecticut.

2. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under the provisions of Sections

1331, 1343(3) and 1367(a) of Title 28 and Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of

the United States Code.

3. The plaintiff is an adult citizen of the United States who resides in

Prospect, Connecticut. Until the termination hereinafter described, he was a

Captain in the Police Department of Meriden, Connecticut.

4. The defendant City of Meriden is a municipal corporation in the State

of Connecticut. It is sued only pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-51q of

the Connecticut General Statutes.

1
 5. The defendant Jeffry Cossette is the Meriden Chief of Police. At all

times mentioned herein, he was the highest policy-setting official for the City of

Meriden with regard to the operations of its police department and all of his

actions hereinafter described were taken in his official capacity. He is sued only

in his individual capacity.

6. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Cossette

was acting under color of law, that is, under color of the constitution, statutes,

laws, rules, regulations, customs and usages of the State of Connecticut.

7. The plaintiff was employed by the City of Meridens Police Department

for twenty (20) years. In his twenty (20) years of service Gaynor held the

positions of a Patrol Officer, a Detective, a Sergeant, a Lieutenant and his last

position was as a Captain. His date of hire was August 5, 1996.

8. In 2010-2011 as part of an internal affairs investigation, within the

Meriden Police Department, a videotape was uncovered. This videotape

showed Evan Cossette, who was an officer with the Meriden Police Department,

at that time, assaulting a defenseless man in a holding cell at the Meriden Police

Department headquarters.

9. Evan Cossette is the son of the defendant Jeffrey Cossette.

10. In the years following the discovery of the incriminating videotape,

specifically 2011 through June 2013, the plaintiff became an essential witness,

2
giving testimony internally and externally to officials, including but not limited to

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a Federal Grand Jury and in the

Federal criminal court trial proceedings against the Chiefs son, Evan Cossette.

The plaintiffs cooperation with the United States in the aforesaid criminal

investigation and prosecution was a matter of great public concern, not a part of

the plaintiffs departmental duties, and constituted conduct protected by the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article First, Sections 3, 4 and

14, of the Connecticut Constitution.

11. In 2012 the plaintiff was one of eight public safety officials nationwide

selected by President Barack Obama to serve on the Medal of Valor Committee.

Additionally, prior to June of 2013 all of the plaintiffs performance evaluations

had been excellent.

12. On June 4, 2013 the Police Chiefs son, Evan Cossette, was found

guilty in this Court and ultimately was incarcerated for his criminal conduct

related to the beating of the defenseless man.

13. After June 4, 2013, the plaintiff became the subject of an

unprecedented number of internal affairs investigations targeted at discrediting

him. These investigations ended with a finding that they were unsubstantiated.

14. Prior to June 2013 the plaintiffs duties included supervision and

senior command for many of the Meriden Police Departments critical operations.

3
 15. From June 2013 the defendant Cossette began a systemic effort to

retaliate against the plaintiff for having testified against his son. These retaliatory

efforts included, but were not limited to, creating negative evaluations to be

placed in the plaintiffs personnel file, the denial of critical training and

advancement opportunities, ignoring the plaintiffs important requests and

proposals related to the operations of the department and the plaintiffs division

and ultimately suspending the plaintiff on September 2, 2016.

16. In December of 2014, defendant Cossette ordered that the plaintiff,

who was Operations Commander at that time, no longer speak to the media.

This order was in direct contravention of the departments general orders and

policy.

17. On September 1, 2016, the plaintiff was notified that defendant

Cossette had filed an Internal Affairs complaint against him alleging

insubordination and misappropriation of funds regarding an online training class

you registered for while supervising the Emergency Communications

Department. These allegations, if true could be construed as criminal conduct

on the part of the plaintiff. In fact, a baseless arrest warrant was sought but

rejected by the States Attorney.

18. Following an internal affairs investigation and hearing the plaintiff was

cleared of all defendant Cossettes false allegations regarding misappropriating

4
funds.

19. On September 1, 2016, after being notified of the false charges

brought by defendant Cossette earlier that day, the plaintiff filed a formal

complaint asserting that defendant Cossette was retaliating against him because

of his testimony for the United States in this court. The filing of that complaint

was speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

and by Article First, Sections 3, 4 and 14, of the Connecticut Constitution. It was

not a part of the plaintiffs job duties but it was on a matter of great public

concern.

20. On September 2, 2016, the plaintiff reported to work at 8:30am and

was working with the new Director of Emergency Communications when he was

notified at 8:30 am to report to defendant Cossettes office at 12:00 noon. The

plaintiff reported, as ordered, and was immediately placed on Administrative

Leave. He was stripped of his gun, badge, ID card, keys, and department

vehicle. Defendant Cossette refused to hear the plaintiffs explanation, insisting

he would not discuss the investigation. The plaintiff was escorted from the

Police facility by Deputy Chief Topulos and was prohibited from returning to the

building. This was done in front of other employees, including newer officers and

civilian staff members. Defendant Cossette did not state a reason for the

suspension but later falsely claimed that the plaintiff had been interfering with

5
the investigation.

21. Meriden Police Department policies and the collective bargaining

agreement outline the parameters for administrative leave and these criteria

were not met in imposing this administrative leave upon the plaintiff.

22. The plaintiff returned to active duty in November, 2016, but was

placed on administrative leave a second time on December 19, 2016. He

remained on involunary administrative leave until the termination of his

employment.

23. On June 26, 2017, the plaintiffs employment was terminated for the

express reason that he had filed his aforesaid complaint of retaliation against

defendant Cossette.

24. The defendants now are attempting to have the plaintiffs police

officer certification taken from him, thereby precluding him from all law-

enforcement employment.

25. As a result, the plaintiff has suffered ongoing economic losses, he

has lost economic and career advancement opportunities and has suffered

severe emotional distress.

26. The aforesaid conduct of the defendants and the ultimate termination

of the plaintiffs employment constituted retaliation for his protected speech. The

plaintiffs protected activity constituted the exercise of free speech protected by

6
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Sections 3, 4 and

14 of Article First of the Connecticut Constitution.

27. The plaintiffs aforesaid exercise of his constitutional rights did not

substantially or materially interfere with his bona fide job performance or the

working relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants.

28. In the manner described above, the defendant City of Meriden

retaliated against the plaintiff in violation of Section 31-51q of the Connecticut

General Statutes.

29. In the manner described above, the defendant Cossette retaliated

against the plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution as enforced through Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the

United States Code.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the City of Meriden,

pursuant to Section 31-51q of the Connecticut General Statutes, for

compensatory damages, punitive damages, such injunctive relief as the court

may consider fair and equitable, attorney fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendant

Cossette pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 for compensatory damages,

punitive damages, such injunctive relief as the court may consider fair and

equitable, attorney fees and costs.

7
The plaintiff claims trial by jury.

THE PLAINTIFF

BY: /s/ John R. Williams

JOHN R. WILLIAMS (ct00215)
51 Elm Street
New Haven, CT 06510
203.562.9931
Fax: 203.776.9494
jrw@johnrwilliams.com