Cloutier v. Ledyard Bd. of Educ.

575 F.Supp.3d 276

Patrick CLOUTIER, Plaintiff,

v.LEDYARD BOARD OF EDUCATION and Sheri Ternowchek, Defendants.

Civil No. 3:20cv1690 (JBA)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed December 17, 2021

L. Kay Wilson, Wilson Law, Glastonbury, CT, for Plaintiff.

Michael J. Rose, Andrew Brooks Farley Carnabuci, Christopher Molloy Neary, Rose Kallor, LLP, Hartford, CT, for Defendant Ledyard Board of Education.

RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiff Patrick Cloutier filed this lawsuit against Defendants Ledyard Board of Education and Shari Ternowchek stemming from Defendants’ alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. , and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act ("CFEPA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46a-58, et seq. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants created a hostile work environment, subjected him to disparate treatment, and wrongfully terminated him, based on impermissible considerations of his status as a white, heterosexual male. (See Am. Compl. [Doc. # 9] ¶¶ 49-63.) Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. (See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss ("Def.’s Mot.") [Doc. # 34].)

I. Facts Alleged

Plaintiff was employed intermittently by Defendant Ledyard Board of Education as a substitute teacher at various schools between May 2018 and June 2019. (Am. Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff, who identifies as a straight, Caucasian, white male of Russian ancestry, alleges that he was repeatedly harassed, physically and verbally, called inappropriate names by staff, teachers, principals, assistant principals, and the Assistant Superintendent. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff claims that Defendant's representatives verbally harassed him when they snickered and mocked him, as well as made "nasty comments" and called him names such as "slut, whore, man-whore, gigolo, homosexual, gay, faggot, and Nazi."¹ (Id. ¶ 7.) These individuals also made "crotch grabbing" gestures toward him, stared and glared at him, and physically blocked his path to intimidate him. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 26, 29, 32.) Plaintiff also alleges that "on at least four different occasions" he picked a work assignment only to learn that he was "forced to work another harder assignment while his chosen assignment was given to a female substitute" when he reported for work.² (Id. ¶¶ 55-57.)

The Second Amended Complaint describes an ensemble of characters, members of management in the Ledyard school system among them, who engaged in the chorus of harassment hurled against Plaintiff, including: Ann Hogsten, Assistant Superintendent of Ledyard Schools; William Turner, Vice Principal of Ledyard High School; James Buonocore, Vice Principal of Ledyard High School; Andrew T., an interim principal of Juliet Long School; Dr. Pamela Austen, Principal of Gallup Hill Elementary School; Shari Ternowchek, Vice Principal of Juliet Long School; Ms. Russak, a math teacher; Robin Harris, a secretary; Nick Gray, a paraprofessional; Robert McCray, a paraprofessional; and Jill Evans, an IT specialist.

For instance, Plaintiff alleges that Ann Hogsten responded: "Do you want me to slut shame you?" during an exchange initiated by Plaintiff when he complimented her dress. (Id. ¶ 10.) Hogsten, acting as Assistant Superintendent, told a "female guest" of Gallup Hill Elementary School that Plaintiff "likes an old lady" referring to the older woman whom Plaintiff was dating. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 31.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Hogsten was Assistant Superintendent of Ledyard Schools when she terminated his employment on July 15, 2019. (Id. ¶ 11.) Next, Robin Harris, the secretary of Defendant's central office, "repeatedly ended telephone conversations ... by saying the word ‘whore’ and, on one occasion, told him she didn't want to talk to him." (Id. ¶ 13.)

Moreover, Plaintiff claims that several of his coworkers and superiors made disparaging comments about his sexuality and preferences. For example, "Dr. Pamela Austen, the Principal, Gallup Hill Elementary School, was standing with Ms. Emily Reed (4th grade teacher) as the Plaintiff was entering the school and Dr. Austen remarked to Reed: ‘Patrick likes an old lay,’ " referring again to the woman with whom Plaintiff had romantic relations.³ (Id. ¶ 18.) In another exchange between Dr. Austen and Reed, Plaintiff overheard Reed ask Dr. Austen, "Do you really think he's a gigolo?"⁴ Dr. Austen replied: "No, but that's what he's being branded." (Id. ¶ 20.) Moreover, Plaintiff alleges "Jill Evans, IT Specialist at the Gallup Hill School, called the Plaintiff a ‘whore’ on several occasions throughout the school year. Periodically, when she passed by him, she would say ‘whore’, after he had said hello to her." (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff claims that Ms. Russak, a math teacher at Ledyard High School, inexplicably called Plaintiff a "whore" sometime during the fall of 2018. (Id. ¶14.) Plaintiff alleges that he once was reprimanded by Mr. William Turner, a Vice Principal of Ledyard High School, for speaking Russian in a classroom. (Id. ¶ 15.) Apparently, Mr. Turner and Mr. James Buonocore, made multiple hostile remarks toward him, including on one occasion in which Buonocore mouthed the word "homosexual" at Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 17.)

In addition, Plaintiff alleges a physical element to the harassment. The Second Amended Complaint describes how Mr. McCray "grabbed his crotch, while glaring at Plaintiff" and made "gestures" with "a hostile look on his face" on more than one occasion. (Id. ¶ 24-26.) Another employee of Defendant, Mr. Grey, joined Mr. McCray in the physical intimidation "on a number of occasions." (Id. ¶ 29.) Other physical intimidation "took the form of physically blocking the plaintiff's path and access to sit at the teacher's table in the cafeteria and impeding the plaintiff's free access and egress in the hallways of the school and in the cafeteria." (Id. ¶ 32.)

In sum, Plaintiff claims that these incidents amounted to "harassment and disparate treatment" including "unfair admonitions, instructions not to speak Russian, reprimands for pretextual reasons and selective enforcement of rules and policies based upon discriminatory animus" toward Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 33.) He alleges that this series of harassing conduct led to his termination after he played a video for students depicting a documentary of music artist Justin Bieber wherein Bieber engaged in lewd and disrespectful behavior. (Id. ¶¶ 34-38.) Plaintiff concedes that he found the video to be inappropriate at the time that he showed it to students. (Id. ¶¶ 34-38.) Despite this, he claims he was "perp walked" out of the building and terminated July 25, 2019 "for vague reasons." (Id. ¶¶ 39-40.)

The saga, however, does not conclude there. Plaintiff alleges that on or about June 20, 2020—nearly a year after his termination—Shari Ternowchek, Vice Principal of Juliet Long School, reprised the harassment by filing a complaint with the Connecticut Department of Children and Families ("DCF") and the Ledyard Police Department against Plaintiff alleging "inappropriate conduct" in connection with the video Plaintiff played for the students. (Id. ¶¶ 41-42.) Ternowchek also opposed Plaintiff's application to obtain unemployment benefits through the Connecticut Department of Labor ("DOL"). (Id. ¶ 43.) Despite Ternowchek's efforts, the Ledyard Police Department and DCF declined to investigate and DOL awarded Plaintiff unemployment benefits. Plaintiff alleges that Ternowchek knew that her complaints would harm Plaintiff's career (Plaintiff alleges that he has been harmed because he now is required to answer "yes" on teaching applications that ask if he has been referred to DCF) and that it was a continuation of the harassment based on his race, color, and gender/gender expression he alleges he endured as a substitute teacher for the Ledyard school system prior to his termination.⁵ (Id. ¶¶ 45-47.)

On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff received a right to sue letter from the EEOC; and on August 26, 2020, he received a release of jurisdiction from the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities—exhausting all administrative remedies. (Id. ¶ 4c.) Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint, the operative complaint, on March 15, 2021. Plaintiff brings six counts: (1) Hostile Work Environment in violation of Title VII; (2) Hostile Work Environment in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act; (3) Disparate Treatment in violation of Title VII; (4) Disparate Treatment in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act; (5) Wrongful Termination in violation of Title VII; and (6) Wrongful Termination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Act. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 49-63.) Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on all counts.

II. Legal Standard

"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Sarmiento v. United States , 678 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). The complaint must be interpreted liberally, all allegations must be accepted as true, and all inferences must be made in the plaintiff's favor. Heller v. Consolidated Rail Corp. , 331 F. App'x. 766, 767 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002) ). Motions to dismiss "assess the legal feasibility of the complaint" and are "not the appropriate place to weigh the likelihood of success on the merits of a claim." In re Walnut Hill, Inc. , 2019 WL 2092383, at *3 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 10, 2019) (quoting Ryder Energy Distribution Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc. , 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984) ). But a complaint that only "offers ‘labels and conclusions’ " or "naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement" will not survive a motion to dismiss. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct....