Moses v. St. Vincent's Special Needs Ctr.

JAMES MOSES JR., Plaintiff, v. ST. VINCENT'S SPECIAL NEEDS CENTER, Defendant.

No. 3:17-cv-1936 (SRU)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

March 31, 2022

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Stefan R. Underhill United States District Judge

In September 2012, James Moses Jr. (“Moses”) lost his job as a program assistant/driver with St. Vincent's Special Needs Center (“St. Vincent's), an organization that provides services to individuals with developmental or cognitive disabilities. At the crux of this case, brought pursuant to Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), is the basis for that termination. Moses who filed this action in 2017, claims that he was terminated in retaliation for making a complaint of discrimination to his supervisor. St. Vincent's denies that any such retaliation occurred and contends instead that Moses's termination followed a pattern of misconduct and insubordination; in fact, according to St. Vincent's, the termination decision preceded Moses's complaint of discrimination. In January 2022, after dismissing the bulk of Moses's claims on summary judgment, I held a two-day bench trial on the claim for retaliatory discharge. For the reasons set forth below, Moses has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct. As a result judgment shall enter in favor of St. Vincent's.

I. Procedural History

Moses, proceeding pro se, filed this action in November 2017, principally alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of gender during the course of his employ at St. Vincent's; that he was retaliated against for complaining about that discrimination; and that his former supervisor defamed or slandered him during the course of the investigation into those complaints. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. On December 13, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge William Garfinkel granted Moses's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but recommended that the case be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Thereafter, Moses filed an amended complaint setting forth additional facts in support of his claims. See Doc. No. 10. In April 2018, I directed service of the amended complaint on St. Vincent's. In April 2020, following discovery, St. Vincent's moved for summary judgment, a motion I granted in substantial measure.^[1]

In January 2022, I held a two-day bench trial to address Moses's Title VII claim for retaliatory discharge-the only claim to survive summary judgment. Moses, who discharged court-appointed counsel a few weeks prior to trial, proceeded pro se, and testified as a witness at trial. Beth Jezierny (“Jezierny”), former Director of Adult Services at St. Vincent's, and Sarah O'Brien (“O'Brien”), Program Supervisor for the adult day program, also testified. I additionally admitted 27 exhibits submitted by the parties during the course of that trial. See Doc. No. 118.

This order constitutes my findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

II. Facts

1. Background

St. Vincent's serves a community of individuals with significant medical or developmental delays. Tr. at 178:11-18. One of the services St. Vincent's offers is the adult day program, where participants engage in various activities of daily living, cognitive activities, and attend community outings accompanied by St. Vincent's staff members. Id. In December 2009, Moses was hired by St. Vincent's as a program assistant/driver for the day program. Id. at 9:15-22; 11:25; 12:1. In that role, Moses's tasks were primarily comprised of picking up individuals along a set “route” each weekday morning and driving them to the Center to attend the day program. Id. at 182:1-10. During the day, Moses assisted in “program areas…performing tasks including activities of daily living, assisting in toileting, assisting in feeding, [and] performing activities.” Id. In Moses's first few months at St. Vincent's, he worked in Building 1, under the supervision of O'Brien. Id. at 9:23-25; 10:1-2. At some point thereafter, he moved to Building 2, where he reported to Frances Hernandez (“Hernandez”). Id. at 15:4-5; 9-11.

For the first six months of his tenure at St. Vincent's, Moses was placed on temporary probation, which was apparently customary for new employees. Id. at 9:23-24. In June 2010, he received a positive performance evaluation from O'Brien, and was informed that he had “passed” the probationary period and would stay on as a program assistant/driver. Id. at 10:6-15. Jezierny recalled that Moses was “generally very good with the participants that we served. He was on time coming to work…responsible and available for transportation to meet the needs of the individuals. He would always greet them and include participants in conversations which is always important.” Id. at 183:5-11. O'Brien testified similarly, noting that Moses “was really great to our participants.” Id. at 121:8-9. She also recalled, however, that Moses “could be combative to other staff.” Id. at 121:9.

In 2011, Moses received a written performance review for the period between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011. Def.'s Ex. V. The review was organized around a variety of performance indicators, and an employee received a ranking-ranging from “needs improvement” to “exceptional”-in each category. Id. Moses received a ranking of “exceptional” in the category of “patient/customer experience, ” and comments on the form praise his “respectful” interactions with program participants. Id. He received a rating of “needs improvement, ” however, in the categories of “communications, oral/listening/written” and “core values/standards of behavior.” Id. Written comments on the review provide, “[Moses] will work on respectful communication with staff and standards of behavior.” Id. O'Brien, who completed the review, explained that Moses often spoke to staff in a sarcastic way and “that there had been a lot of problems with discussions with him.” Tr. at 127:2-7; 128: 1-6.

2. Disciplinary Incidents

Two disciplinary incidents, which occurred about a month apart, are especially significant in this case. First, on August 16, 2011, Moses received a “verbal warning, ” memorialized in a written Disciplinary Action Form, for “[u]sing a company vehicle for personal use.” Pl.'s Ex. 2. Specifically, the form provides: “You were observed on August 16, 2011 going through a drive-thru window on company time after your afternoon run.” Id. Language on the form additionally warns that “further violation of this or any other agency policy will result in disciplinary action, including termination.”^[2] Id. Although the form includes a space for an employee's signature, a handwritten notation on the form provides that Moses “refuse[d] to sign.” Id. At trial, Moses explained that he refused to sign the form because he disagreed with the allegations therein; although he conceded that he had stopped at a McDonald's on the day in question, he recalls that he did so merely to use the bathroom and did not attempt to go through the drive-through, nor did he purchase a meal. Id. at 19:4-11; 142:11-12.

On September 16, 2011, Moses received a second disciplinary action form citing him for “[i]nsubordination. Refusal to move your vehicle when asked by the Administrator. You also exhibited verbally offensive and confrontational behavior toward the Administrator.” Pl.'s Ex. 3. Like the first, that form warns that further violations of “this or any other agency policy will result in disciplinary action, including termination.” Id. Also like the first, that form contains a handwritten notation indicating that Moses “refused to sign.” Id. At trial, Moses testified in detail about the incident referenced in that Disciplinary Action Form, recalling that a dispute had arisen after Hernandez asked him to move his car from a particular parking spot so that a coworker could park there. Tr. at 23:1-18; 28:23-25; 29:1. Moses, who recalled being told at the time of hiring that there were no assigned parking spots, refused to move his vehicle. Id. at 24:1-4; 10-13. At trial, Moses conceded that he had refused to move his car despite Hernandez's requests, but maintained that he had been neither verbally offensive nor confrontational during the conversation. Id. at 27; 28: 1-5.

3. The Events of September 5

The next relevant incident between Moses and Hernandez occurred on September 5, 2012, more than a year later. When Moses arrived at work that morning, he was informed that Hernandez was making changes to certain drivers' pick-up routes because new participants were being added to the day program. Id. at 29: 10-21. Hernandez informed Moses that he would be assigned a new route, and that he would receive training from another coworker for a few days before driving the route alone. Id. O'Brien, who was in the room when Moses was informed of the route change, recalled that Moses was “not particularly happy” with the new assignment, and that he was angry that his route had been changed. Id. at 133:7-17. Moses disputed that characterization; although he conceded that he was displeased with the new route, see Id. at 91:9-14 he testified that he did not speak to Hernandez in an aggressive or unprofessional manner. Id. at 32:4-13. He did recall, however, that during the conversation regarding his new route, he requested approval from Hernandez to take two days off later in the month. Id. at 30:24-25. Hernandez granted the request with respect to the first day but denied it with respect to the second day. Id. at 30:24-25; 31:1-2. Moses was “bothered” by her refusal, but testified that he “did not become emotionally upset, ” see id at 31:7-10; according to Moses, “there was no incident.” Id. at 32:18. Although Hernandez did not...