Supreme Court No. 2021-332-Appeal. (PC 19-4868) (Concurrence and Dissent begins on Page 13) Enrique Sosa : v. : City of Woonsocket. : NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or Email: opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. Supreme Court No. 2021-332-Appeal. (PC 19-4868) (Concurrence and Dissent begins on Page 13) Enrique Sosa : v. : City of Woonsocket. : Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ. OPINION Justice Goldberg, for the Court. This case came before the Supreme Court on May 10, 2023, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The defendant, the City of Woonsocket (defendant or city), appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Enrique Sosa, declaring that the city terminated the plaintiff’s employment from the Woonsocket Police Department in violation of G.L. 1956 § 42-28.6-4 of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBOR), and ordering the defendant to comply with the procedural requirements of LEOBOR if -1- it wished to terminate the plaintiff’s employment. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we are satisfied that cause has not been shown and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. Facts and Travel On September 12, 2018, plaintiff was involved in a domestic disturbance at the home of a former girlfriend of his in Uxbridge, Massachusetts; he was arrested and charged with felony breaking and entering, felony assault with a dangerous weapon, and assault on a family/household member. At the time of his arrest, plaintiff was employed as a permanent full-time law enforcement officer by the city, and was off duty at the time of these offenses. In accordance with LEOBOR, plaintiff was suspended without pay on September 13, 2018. On January 4, 2019, plaintiff appeared in Uxbridge District Court to respond to the charges.1 At that hearing, plaintiff admitted to a recitation of the facts of the charged offenses as recounted by the prosecutor. In exchange for this admission, the case was continued without a finding for one year. The plaintiff was ordered to 1 There is some confusion in the record regarding the date that plaintiff appeared in Uxbridge District Court to respond to the charges against him. The transcript of that court appearance states that the hearing took place on January 14, 2019. The plaintiff’s criminal docket however, as well as his pleadings and termination letter, denote the date as January 4, 2019. -2- continue with his substance-abuse counseling program, provide alcohol-free screens, and complete a batterers’ intervention program. By letter dated April 3, 2019, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals