
Ansonia Police Department Facebook
Ansonia Police Department.
ANSONIA – A judge ruled Jan. 23 that the city’s police department illegally retaliated against a detective who had submitted an anonymous complaint about a fellow officer.
Judge Barry Steven’s ruling vacates a decision from an arbitration board that was in favor of the city.
The civil lawsuit was filed against the Ansonia Police Department in 2023 by the Ansonia Police Union.
The judge ruled that Detective Jonathan Troesser had the right to lodge an anonymous complaint against a fellow officer in 2021.
“When viewed as a whole, it is clear that the complaint was submitted in order to report discriminatory behavior within the department, and that Troesser was engaging in protected behavior by doing so,” Judge Stevens said in a written ruling.
However, the detective “was penalized as a result,” the judge ruled.
Background
In December 2021 the detective submitted an anonymous complaint to Ansonia Police Commission member John Tar.
The detective’s anonymous complaint alleged another officer had made an offensive comment toward a police officer in training. The trainee “stated that she spoke five languages to which he made a comment asking her if she spoke ‘ebonics.’”
The trainee left the police department three months later.
Detective Troesser had been in contact with the trainee, who did not want to lodge a complaint herself. Detective Troesser said he submitted the complaint anonymously because he feared it would be covered up.
The detective’s anonymous complaint alleged that there is “a group within the department that is untouchable,” and it says that complainants are scared to report incidents “because of retaliation taken by this group which is protected by (then-)Acting Chief (Wayne) Williams.”
Internal Affairs Investigation Launched
The Ansonia Police Department launched an investigation into Detective Troesser’s complaint in December 2021. The officer who allegedly made the “ebonics” comment denied doing so.
The officer accused of making the comment was eventually cleared – but not before internal affairs shifted its focus to Detective Troesser and his anonymous complaint.
The detective had submitted his complaint as a Word file. The metadata in the file identified him as the author.
The internal affairs report concluded that Detective Troesser had engaged in “criticism and malicious gossip” by making unproven allegations against a sergeant and Chief Williams.
The detective had a written warning submitted to his disciplinary file.
The police union appealed the disciplinary action to the state Board of Mediation and Arbitration. In August 2023, that board ruled in the department’s favor, saying the detective’s “cover up” remarks were made without evidence and that he relied on “gossip and rumor.”
The union then appealed that ruling to the Superior Court.
In a brief, the union’s lawyer pointed out that the cop who allegedly made the offensive comment was interviewed by the internal affairs investigation for six-and-a-half minutes – and was questioned about the “ebonics” comment for just 25 seconds – while Troesser was interviewed for over an hour over the course of two interviews.
Judge Stevens agreed with most of the union’s arguments, saying that disciplining Troesser ran afoul of state employment laws.
The ruling also questioned the city’s characterization of Troesser’s complaint as a “smear” against his superiors, saying that the city had “cherry-picked” his complaint to reach that conclusion.
“Such a conclusion can only be reached by a skewed, tortured, narrowly limited reading of the complaint. Making an anonymous complaint regarding discriminatory incidents and relying on personal experience and the knowledge of other employees to verify credibility does not amount to malicious gossip. In short, the (APD) essentially had to rewrite the complaint in order to reach the result the city now defends,” the ruling states.
The judge also said that certain policies to combat “malicious gossip” at the police department were written so broadly that they could be used to punish officers engaging in legally protected behavior.
The Jan. 23 ruling states that the union had established a clear case of retaliatory behavior from the department, and that the city failed to present a convincing argument to the contrary.
Reaction
The Valley Indy sent an email to Rachel Baird, the attorney representing the police union, asking for comment and whether any further legal action against the department was planned. A response had not been received by deadline.
The Valley Indy also asked two parties affiliated with the city for response, both to the court’s ruling and to Troesser’s original complaint.
“No comment at this time,” said city attorney John Marini, who represented the department in court.
“We have no comment on this personnel matter other than to say we disagree with the judge’s ruling,” said Lt. Patrick Lynch, the department’s spokesman.
CORRECTION: The original version of this story named the wrong judge.