Jackson v. Post Univ. Inc.

RODERICK JACKSON, Plaintiff,

v.POST UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendant.

3:08 - CV- 1810 (CSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Dated: December 7, 2011

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Roderick Jackson (herein "plaintiff" or "Jackson") is a black African-American who brings this civil rights action against his former employer, defendant Post University ("defendant," "Post," or "the University"), alleging in his complaint that on March 2, 2007, Post unlawfully terminated his employment on the basis of his race and color in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (first cause of action) and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act ("CFEPA") (second cause of action).¹ See Doc. #1. After exhausting state administrative remedies with respectto his CFEPA claim and thereby receiving a "Release of Jurisdiction" from the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (see Part II.A, "Jurisdiction," infra),² plaintiff filed his complaint in this Court on December 1, 2008.³

Defendant has moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 56(a)(1) for summary judgment on bothcauses of action alleged in the complaint. Doc. #20. Specifically, defendant maintains that there is no genuine issue of material fact that prevents entry of judgment on its behalf as a matter of law because plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of racial bias. Moreover, defendant argues that there is a presumption against the existence of discriminatory intent in plaintiff's discharge because the Post employee who participated in hiring plaintiff is the same person who made the decision to terminate his employment less than eleven months later. Doc. #21, p. 17-18.

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE

A. Jurisdiction

This Court has "federal question" subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's Section 1981 claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331⁴ and 1343(a)(4).⁵ Plaintiff's section 1981 claim patently arises under federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq., and also seeks to recover damages for the violation of civil rights.⁶

Moreover, this Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff'sCFEPA claim, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60, et seq., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).⁷ Plaintiff's CFEPA claim, based on racial discrimination with respect to the termination of his employment by Post, is "so related to" his federal Section 1981 claim "that they form part of the same case or controversy." 28 U.S.C.§ 1367(a). Specifically, both claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. See Dixon v. Int'l Fed'n of Accountants, 416 F. App'x 107, 111 (2d Cir. 2011) ("Claims form part of the same case or controversy when they 'derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.'")(quoting City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997)). Accordingly, it is within the Court's discretion to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's state CFEPA claim, and I do so.

Furthermore, plaintiff asserts that he has exhausted all administrative remedies required as a precondition to commence a court action on his CFEPA claim, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 (a) (1). Namely, plaintiff filed a charge of employment discrimination on the basis of race or color with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CCHRO") on May 4, 2007, within the requisite 180-day period following his termination. He thereafter received a "Release of Jurisdiction" from the CCHRO, issued on September 3, 2008.⁸ Doc. #1, p. 12-13 (Ex. 1). Plaintiffthen filed the present action in United States District Court on December 1, 2008, within 90 days of receiving the release. Doc. #1. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-101(e) ("Any action brought by the complainant in accordance with section 46a-100 shall be brought within ninety days of the receipt of the release from the commission."). Plaintiff has thus followed the requisite state administrative procedures to allow this court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over his CFEPA claim. See, e.g., Collins v. Univ. of Bridgeport, 781 F.Supp.2d 59, 62 (D. Conn. 2011) ("To maintain an action for discriminatory practices under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46a-58 through 46a-81, a plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies."); Anderson v. Derby Bd. of Educ., 718 F. Supp.2d 258, 271-72 (D. Conn. 2010). Post does not contend that Jackson did not comply with these statutory requirements.

B. Venue

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Section 1391(b) provides that "[a] civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship" may only be brought in three specified judicial districts:

(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In the present action, plaintiff contends, without dispute, that Connecticut is the judicial district in which the events giving rise to the claim occurred. Plaintiff was employedin Connecticut and all events leading to his discharge occurred within that state.

III. FACTS

The facts established by the record are as follows.

A. Hiring of Plaintiff

In March of 2006, Edmond Lizotte, Post's Director of Human Resources, and Cheryl Gatling, Post's Office Manager of Admissions, participated in a job fair for the purpose of hiring an individual to fill a newly created position of field admissions representative. Plaintiff Jackson attended the fair.⁹ Jackson Depo., p. 114, l. 10-13; Lizotte Depo., p. 13, l. 7-20.¹⁰ Lizotte observed plaintiff walk by the recruiting table four times before intercepting him to query whether he was interested in obtaining a position with Post. Lizotte Dep., p. 11, l. 21 to p. 12, l. 13. Lizotte interviewed plaintiff and asked him what he was "looking to do." Id., p. 12, l. 3-9; see also Jackson Dep., p. 116, l. 22 to p. 117, p. 2. In the process of the interview, Lizotte examined plaintiff's resume and determined that he had prior experience in sales but none in college recruitment.¹¹ Lizotte Dep., p. 12, l. 9-10. Lizotte had an overall favorable impression of the way plaintiff conducted himself during the interview so he suggested that plaintiff attend a follow up interview with Dominick Miciotta, who was at that time Post's Vice President of Enrollment Management.¹² Id., p. 12, l. 14-20.

Lizotte thereafter discussed plaintiff's application with Miciotta, recommending plaintiff as a candidate for the field admissions representative position. Id., p. 12, l. 14-20; Jackson Dep., p. 121, l. 22 to p. 122, l. 3. Two weeks after the job fair, Miciotta phoned plaintiff and set up an on-campus interview. Lizotte Dep., p. 12, l. 14-20; Jackson Dep., p. 121, l. 22 to p. 122, l. 3.

On the day of the interview with Miciotta, plaintiff also spoke with various other management-level employees at Post, including Lizotte and the outgoing President, Jon Jay DeTemple. Jackson Dep., p. 126, l. 19-23; l. 153, l. 2-6; p. 154, l. 7-11.

Miciotta made the determinative decision to hire plaintiff to work directly under him. Lizotte Dep., p. 16, l. 7-14. While Miciotta did not need clearance to make this decision, Lizotte acquiescedin it.¹³ Id. Lizotte telephoned plaintiff and offered him the position of field admissions representative. Jackson Dep., p. 154, l. 19-24; p. 155, l. 7-20. Plaintiff accepted the offer during that phone conversation with Lizotte. Id., p. 159, l. 1-15. On March 30, 2006, Post's then President DeTemple wrote plaintiff a letter to confirm plaintiff's agreement to accept the field admissions representative position, with an effective start date of April 17, 2006. Lizotte, Dep., Ex. B; Jackson Dep., p. 155, l. 21-25, p. 158, l. 5-10. On April 17, 2006, Miciotta sent an "Organizational Announcement" email to all Post staff, welcoming plaintiff to Post. Lizotte Dep., Ex. C.

B. April 17, 2006 to June 5, 2006 - Field Admissions Representative

During the initial term of his employment, Jackson worked primarily from his home in West Hartford and was responsible for "in person" recruitment of high school students in Connecticut. In this field admissions capacity, he traveled to high schools and career fairs to meet and encourage students to apply for admission to Post. Jackson Dep., p. 177, l. 16 to p. 181, l. 17. To assist plaintiff in attaining his objectives, Miciotta, as his direct supervisor, provided plaintiff with marketing materials, databases of high schools and adult education centers, and the mandatory number of high schools for plaintiff to contact each day.¹⁴ Id.; see also id., p. 181, l. 16-23.

Plaintiff testified that, from April 17, 2006, to June 5, 2006, he got along "okay" and "fine" with his direct supervisor, Miciotta. Id., p. 186, l. 21-25 He also agreed that everyone in the various Post departments was "cordial" with him during the initial weeks of his employment. Id., p. 170,l. 2-4.

C. June 5, 2006 - Online Enrollment Representative

On June 5, 2006, Miciotta met with plaintiff to inform him that his job duties were modified to incorporate those of an online enrollment representative. Jackson Dep., p. 176, l. 18 to p. 177, l. 18; 187, l. 11-22; p. 193, l. 13-19. In that altered position, plaintiff retained his field admissions representative title and salary but was also responsible for online recruiting. Lizotte Dep., Ex. D (Memo from Miciotta to Jackson re: Restructure of Job Duties, dated 6/12/2006). After four initial weeks of on-campus training with his new supervisor, Veronica Marrero, Assistant Director of Online Admissions, plaintiff resumed working from home.¹⁵ Id. Miciotta provided plaintiff with a list of various daily and...