New London — Daniel Golodner has won and lost legal battles against the city and its police department.

The 53-year-old Colman Street resident collected $50,000 last year to settle a federal lawsuit claiming police misconduct during an arrest in 2009. But in 2012, Golodner went to prison for four months after being convicted of interfering with an officer and reckless endangerment in a 2008 incident.

This week, Golodner and his attorney, John R. Williams of New Haven, are claiming a victory.

On Monday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill’s decision that the city is not immune from a federal lawsuit in which Golodner, a security contractor, claims New London stopped doing business with him in retaliation for suing the city for police misconduct. The police misconduct lawsuit was ultimately dismissed.

“It’s a pretty important decision in the area of First Amendment law,” Williams said. “It strengthens the proposition that government agencies cannot retaliate against people who exercise free speech rights. It clarifies the breadth of free speech rights at a time when some courts have been cutting back on them.”

Underhill had denied a motion for summary judgment in which the city claimed it was immune from the lawsuit because Golodner’s police misconduct claim did not involve a matter of public concern and was not protected by the First Amendment. The City appealed the decision to the Second Circuit court, where Judges Christopher F. Droney, Peter W. Hall and Chester J. Straub affirmed Underhill’s ruling in an Oct. 27 decision.

“We are convinced that Golodner raised issues that extend well beyond mere personal grievances and into the realm of public concern,” the decision, which was written by Hall, reads. The court noted it is not taking a position on whether Golodner will be able to substantiate his claims and that the city may be entitled to immunity at a later stage.

Golodner, whose company Security Technology Systems maintained the city’s alarm system, was notified in November 2009 that the city had awarded the contract to another provider, Integrated Security Systems, in part because it had submitted the lowest bid, according to the appeal court decision. Golodner filed the lawsuit, claiming retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, in April 2010.

He said in a phone conversation Friday that he is claiming lost income of $100,000 plus additional damages for bad publicity that “devastated” his company.

“We can show a lot of malice,” he said.

Attorney Michael J. Rose of Hartford, who represents the city, described the Second Circuit ruling as a straightforward decision on the immunity question and said it means, simply, that the case will go to trial.

“The city looks forward to defending its actions at trial,” Rose said.

k.florin@theday.com

Twitter: @KFLORIN