Miro v. City of Bridgeport

1

LISA MIRO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, Defendant.

No. 3:20-cv-0346 (VAB)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

March 17, 2023

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

VICTOR A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Lisa Miro (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Miro”) sued the City of Bridgeport (“Defendant”) alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”). See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 1-35, ECF No. 43 (Feb. 16, 2021). More specifically, Ms. Miro alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII (Count One) and CFEPA (Count Two); quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of Tittle VII and CFEPA (Count Three); Retaliation in violation of Title VII (Count Four); and Retaliation in violation of CFEPA (Count Five).

On April 27, 2022, the City of Bridgeport moved to dismiss Ms Miro's Complaint on various ground. See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 115. The Court granted the motion to dismiss as to counts Four and Five but denied the motion as to counts One, Two and Three. See Order, ECF No. 124 (Aug. 11, 2022). The City of Bridgeport has now moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims counts One, Two and Three. See Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 126 (Sep. 9, 2022) (“Mot.”); Def.'s Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No 126-1 (Sep. 9, 2022) (“Mem.”). Ms. Miro opposes the motion. See Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 134 (Oct. 17, 2022) (“Opp'n”).

For the following reasons, the City's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background^[1]

a. Ms. Miro's Employment with the City of Bridgeport

After Joseph Ganim (“Mayor Ganim”) became mayor of the City of Bridgeport in 2015, Ms. Miro contacted the administration regarding employment. Pl.'s Rule 56(a)(2) Statement in Resp. to Def.'s Rule 56(a)(1) Statement ¶ 14, ECF No. 136 (Oct. 17, 2022) (“Miro Statement”).^[2]On June 8, 2016, John K. Ricci (“Mr. Ricci”), the Public Facilities Director for the City of Bridgeport, hired Ms. Miro for a position with the City. Id. ¶ 1. The “desire for the [City of Bridgeport] was to bring Ms. Miro on eventually as a full-time employee.” Ex. V to Mot., ECF No. 126-4, Testimony of J. Hawkins, 67:8-16. As director of Public Facilities, Mr. Ricci is “authorized to transfer positions and employees between units of the department of public facilities as the need arises and fund are available.” Miro Statement ¶¶ 19, 20. Immediately after she was hired, Mr. Ricci assigned Ms. Miro to the Lighthouse afterschool program as Youth Program Manager. Id. ¶¶ 3, 4.

b. The Youth Program Manager Position

The Youth Program Manager position is unionized and available only to a member of the Laborers' International Union of North America (“LIUNA”). Id. ¶ 6. Ms. Miro was not a member of the union when she was hired by the City of Bridgeport and assigned as Youth Program Manager. Id. ¶ 7. On April 4, 2017, while Ms. Miro was employed as a seasonal^[3]Youth Program Manager, the City of Bridgeport posted a permanent Youth Program Manager position which was open only to LIUNA members. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. The same day, Mark Harp, a union member applied for the position. Id. ¶¶ 9; Ex. H to Mem., ECF No. 126-4. Ms. Miro, as a nonunion member, was ineligible to apply for the position. Id. ¶ 7. Ms. Miro, however, remained in her role as Youth Program Manager until September 21, 2017. Id. at ¶ 31.

On August 22, 2017, Mr. Harp filed a grievance against the City of Bridgeport for “knowingly . . . allowing[ing] a non-bargaining unit person to perform the work that is covered by the collective bargaining agreement,” and requested that the City of Bridgeport “immediately remove[]” Ms. Miro from the position. Ex. J to Mem., ECF No. 126-4.

c. Ms. Miro's Interactions with Mr. Ricci During her Employment

During Ms. Miro's employment as Youth Program Manager, Mr. Ricci, whom Ms. Miro met while they both worked on the mayoral campaign of then candidate Ganim, Ex. A to Pl.'s Opp'n ¶ 2, ECF No. 135 (Oct. 17, 2022) (“Miro Affidavit”), made repeated advances towards Ms. Miro, see Miro Statement ¶ 44. On at least one occasion, Mr. Ricci asked Ms. Miro to go to the movies with him, which she declined. Id. Ms. Miro admits that before being hired by Mr. Ricci, she was aware that Mr. Ricci “was interested in” her. Ex. D to Mem., ECF No. 126-4, Testimony of Lisa Miro, 30:12-15. After she started working for him, however, “it was out of line[.]” Id.

d. Ms. Miro's Termination as Youth Program Manager

On September 21, 2017, Ms. Miro met with Mr. Ricci and City of Bridgeport Labor Relations Officer, Phillip White, where they discussed a new position as a typist. Miro Statement ¶ 33. Ms. Miro received an e-mail before the meeting detailing the job offer for the new position, Typist II, id. ¶32, which had an annual salary of $42,259, id. ¶ 30. The parties disagree on whether Ms. Miro rejected that job offer or if she simply sought more time to discuss the offer with her attorney at the time. Id. ¶ 31. The City of Bridgeport ended Ms. Miro's employment as a Lighthouse Program Manager on September 21, 2017. ¶ 28.

On September 23, 2017, Ms. Miro contacted Mayor Ganim regarding the job that she was promised, which included “medical insurance as full time employee[.]” Ex. X to Mem., EFC No. 126-4. In her communications with Mayor Ganim, Ms. Miro made note of “negative, documented proof of yet another employee[] you've surrounded yourself.” Id. Ms. Miro indicated that she was “prepared to file a civil suit for being subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment for which [she has] abundant proof in form of text and email messages.” Id. Ms. Miro indicated that “she did not want to go down this path” and that she “had hoped that it would be settled amicably.” Id.

B. Procedural History

On March 13, 2020, Ms. Miro, acting pro se, filed the Complaint against the City of Bridgeport alleging violations of Title VII and CFPA. See Compl.

On April 24, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish issued a recommended ruling, recommending to this Court to allow the hostile work environment sexual harassment claims under Title VII and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act to proceed. See Recomended Ruling, ECF No. 14.

On May 14, 2020, the Court adopted Judge Farrish's recommended ruling and directed Ms. Miro to file an Amended Complaint. See Order Adopting Recommended Ruling, ECF No. 16.

On June 12, 2020, Mr. Miro filed an Amended Complaint. See Pl.'s Am. Compl., ECF No. 17.

On September 1, 2020, the City of Bridgeport filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the proceedings pending a resolution of a parallel state action. See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to Stay the Proceedings, ECF No. 26. The next day, the City of Bridgeport filed a supplemental motion requesting a thirty-day extension to file a responsive pleading in light of Ms. Miro's withdrawal of the state case. See Def.'s Supp. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 27.

On December 15, 2020, the Court sua sponte granted Ms. Miro leave to amend her Amended Complaint. See Order, ECF No. 39. On the same day, the Court denied as moot the City of Bridgeport's motion to dismiss in light of Ms. Miro's expected Amended Complaint. See Order, ECF No. 40.

On February 16, 2021, Ms. Miro filed a Second Amended Complaint. See Am. Compl.

On March 9, 2021, the City of Bridgeport filed a motion to dismiss counts Four and Five of the Second Amended Complaint. See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Counts 4 and 5 of Revised Complaint, ECF No. 45.

On March 24, 2022, Ms. Miro filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss counts Four and Five of the Second Amended Complaint. See Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 50.

On April 7, 2021, the City of Bridgeport filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. See Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 51.

On March 29, 2022, the Court granted in part the City of Bridgeport's motion to dismiss counts Four and Five, but permitted claims of retaliations related to sexual harassment to proceed. See Order, ECF No. 113.

On April 27, 2022, the City of Bridgeport filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Plaintiff's Revised Complaint, ECF No. 115.

On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. See Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n, ECF No. 118.

On June 30, 2022, Defendant filed a reply in support of it motion to dismiss. See Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 121.

On August 11, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing courts Four and Five and denying the motion to dismiss as to counts One, Two and Three. See Order, ECF No. 124.

On September 1, 2022, Defendant's filed its Answer. See Def.'s Answer, ECF No. 125.

On September 7, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. See Mot.

On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment. See Opp'n. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed a response to Defendant's 56(a) Statement. See Pl.'s Response to Defendant's Rule 56(a) Statement, ECF No. 136.

On October 20, 2022, plaintiff filed Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement of Disputed Issues of Material Facts. See Pl.'s Rule 56(a) Statement of Disputed Issues of Material Facts, ECF No. 139.

On December 12, 2022, Defendant filed its reply in further support of its motion for summary judgment. See Reply.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court will grant a motion for summary judgment if the record shows no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)....