The US District Courtroom for the District of Connecticut has dismissed a go well with filed by a Hispanic hearth captain with the Hartford hearth Division who claims he was discriminated in opposition to by African American officers. Captain Emmanuel Ramos claims he was improperly written up for coming in late, improperly accused of insubordination, requested to depart a digital assembly, and denied the chance to behave as hearth marshal on account of being Hispanic.
The go well with alleged constitutional violations of Equal Safety underneath 42 USC §1983, violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, retaliation for complaining about his mistreatment, and several other state legislation claims. After going by way of prolonged explanations, the courtroom summarized its conclusions as follows:
- To ascertain a hostile work setting declare, “[a] plaintiff should . . . show that []he was subjected to the hostility due to h[is] membership in a protected class.”
- Defendant argues that, even within the gentle most favorable to Captain Ramos, his alleged harassment consists of race impartial personnel and administrative actions and falls in need of extreme and pervasive harassment that will alter the phrases and situations of employment.
- The Courtroom agrees.
- Captain Ramos factors to no information connecting any of his allegations of unfair remedy to any race-related allegation.
- Accordingly, Captain Ramos has didn’t create a real subject of reality as to his hostile work setting, and abstract judgment will likely be granted as to this declare.
- Captain Ramos makes common assertions that he was punished and disciplined following his studies of harassment, however Captain Ramos solely identifies three particular allegations: (1) the October 2020 written warning; (2) the October 2021 suspension; and (3) the investigation into allegations that Captain Ramos was absent with out depart.
- Taking these issues in reverse order, the investigation, which didn’t end in disciplinary motion, was not an opposed employment motion.
- Moreover, though a suspension with out pay is an opposed employment motion, it’s undisputed that Captain Ramos’s warning and suspension had been each diminished to counseling actions.
- Though the Courtroom acknowledges the mosaic method to establishing an opposed employment motion, with out Captain Ramos figuring out something within the file that demonstrates that being recommended twice created a materially opposed change within the phrases and situations of employment, he has failed to lift a factually dispute relating to such.
- Accordingly, the Courtroom will grant Defendant’s movement for abstract judgment as to Captain Ramos’s retaliation declare.
- Defendant argues that Captain Ramos’s disparate remedy declare fails on the first stage of the McDonnell Douglas framework as a result of he can not set up an opposed employment motion or circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
- Defendant additionally argues that any opposed employment actions previous to August 20, 2020, are premature.
- In response, Captain Ramos seems to argue that he’s not bringing a disparate influence declare.
- Accordingly, given Captain Ramos’s concession, this case will not be continuing on a disparate remedy principle underneath § 1983 or Title VII, and any such declare will likely be dismissed from this case.
- Having determined to dismiss Captain Ramos’s federal claims, the Courtroom should decide whether or not to train supplemental jurisdiction over Captain Ramos’s state legislation claims.
- Accordingly, the Courtroom will dismiss the state legislation claims with out prejudice to refiling in state courtroom.
Here’s a copy of the grievance: