CLUKEY et al v. TOWN OF CAMDEN

Filing 46

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 32 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 43 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ALAN CLUKEY and DERA CLUKEY,
Plaintiffs
v.
TOWN OF CAMDEN,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:11-cv-372-GZS

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on October 30, 2013, his
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 43). Plaintiffs filed their Objection to the Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 44) on November 13, 2013. Defendant filed its Response to Plaintiffs’ Objection
to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 45) on December 2, 2013.
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together
with the entire record. I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the
Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision. Based on that de novo review, I note that Plaintiffs
have produced no evidence that Alan Clukey “file[d]” a mailing address or telephone number “in
writing . . . with the Town Manager at his office.” Rather, Plaintiffs have stipulated that Clukey
made no such filing prior to July 1, 2008. Thus, the current factual record cannot support a finding
that Clukey has a trialworthy claim for violation of his procedural due process rights under the CBA
as indicated in the Recommended Decision.
The CBA cannot reasonably be read to require the Town to contact affected employees
subject to recall at the address in the personnel file in the absence of any filing by the employee, as

Clukey suggests. Undoubtedly, each laid off employee would have a personnel file with some
personal contact information in it. However, the existence of a personnel file cannot satisfy the
unambiguous language of Article 19, Section 3 of the CBA, which clearly calls for affected
employees with a right to recall to make a written filing. This filing requirement provides clarity and
certainty to both the affected employee and the Town regarding who and how to recall an employee
should recall become an available option. See, e.g., Briggs v. Briggs, 711 A.2d 1286, 1288-89 (Me.
1998) (“A contract must be interpreted to effect the parties' intentions as reflected in the written
instrument, construed with regard for the subject matter, motive, and purpose of the instrument, as
well as the object to be accomplished.”) While there might be ambiguity as to the timing or content
of a particular written filing by an affected employee under Article 19, Section 3 of the CBA, there is
simply no doubt that the current record does not raise this issue.
Ultimately, I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the
reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, as supplemented by this Order, and determine that
no further proceeding is necessary.
1.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge
(ECF No. 43) is hereby AFFIRMED.

2.

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
30) is GRANTED.

3.

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 32) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 4th day of February, 2014.