Hartford Prevails in Discrimination Suit

The US District Court for the District of Connecticut has dismissed a suit filed by a Hispanic fire captain with the Hartford fire Department who claims he was discriminated against by African American officers. Captain Emmanuel Ramos claims he was improperly written up for coming in late, improperly accused of insubordination, asked to leave a virtual meeting, and denied the opportunity to act as fire marshal on account of being Hispanic.

The suit alleged constitutional violations of Equal Protection under 42 USC §1983, violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, retaliation for complaining about his mistreatment, and several state law claims. After going through lengthy explanations, the court summarized its conclusions as follows:

• To establish a hostile work environment claim, “[a] plaintiff must . . . demonstrate that []he was subjected to the hostility because of h[is] membership in a protected class.”
• Defendant argues that, even in the light most favorable to Captain Ramos, his alleged harassment consists of race neutral personnel and administrative actions and falls short of severe and pervasive harassment that may alter the terms and conditions of employment.
• The Court agrees.
• Captain Ramos points to no facts connecting any of his allegations of unfair treatment to any race-related allegation.
• Accordingly, Captain Ramos has failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to his hostile work environment, and summary judgment will be granted as to this claim.
• Captain Ramos makes general assertions that he was punished and disciplined following his reports of harassment, but Captain Ramos only identifies three specific allegations: (1) the October 2020 written warning; (2) the October 2021 suspension; and (3) the investigation into allegations that Captain Ramos was absent without leave.
• Taking these matters in reverse order, the investigation, which did not result in disciplinary action, was not an adverse employment action.
• Additionally, although a suspension without pay is an adverse employment action, it is undisputed that Captain Ramos’s warning and suspension were both reduced to counseling actions.
• Although the Court recognizes the mosaic approach to establishing an adverse employment action, without Captain Ramos identifying anything in the record that demonstrates that being counseled twice created a materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment, he has failed to raise a factually dispute regarding such.
• Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Captain Ramos’s retaliation claim.
• Defendant argues that Captain Ramos’s disparate treatment claim fails at the first stage of the McDonnell Douglas framework because he cannot establish an adverse employment action or circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
• Defendant also argues that any adverse employment actions prior to August 20, 2020, are untimely.
• In response, Captain Ramos appears to argue that he is not bringing a disparate impact claim.
• Accordingly, given Captain Ramos’s concession, this case is not proceeding on a disparate treatment theory under § 1983 or Title VII, and any such claim will be dismissed from this case.
• Having decided to dismiss Captain Ramos’s federal claims, the Court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Captain Ramos’s state law claims.
• Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the state law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Here is a copy of the complaint: