Praver v. State of Conn. Dep't of Corr.

1

SHAUL MARSHALL PRAVER, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ET AL. Defendant.

CIVIL No. 3:22-cv-01616(AWT)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

January 18, 2024

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Alvin W. Thompson United States District Judge

The pro se plaintiff, Shaul Marshall Praver, brings this action against his former employer, State of Connecticut Department of Correction (“DOC”), and ten individual defendants, asserting claims for religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of state and federal law. The plaintiff filed the complaint on December 19, 2022 and subsequently filed a “Definitive Statement” on April 12, 2023 in response to a motion for a more definite statement filed by defendants DOC and Angel Quiros. The plaintiff's claims are as follows Count One, hostile work environment in violation of Title VII; Count Two, religious discrimination in violation of Title VII; Count Three, retaliation in violation of Title VII; Count Four, discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C § 1983; Count Five, retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Count Six, a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985; Count Seven, religious discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”) Conn. Gen Stat. § 46a-60 et seq..^[1] The plaintiff does not specify which counts are brought against which defendants.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6).

For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motion to dismiss is being denied in part and granted in part.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Complaint, “which [the court] must accept as true for purposes of testing its sufficiency,” alleges the following circumstances. Monsky v. Moraghan, 127 F.3d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1997).^[2]

Plaintiff Rabbai Shaul Marshall Praver was employed by the DOC as a Chaplain Rabbi from October 2013 to April 2022. In his role as a Chaplain Rabbi, “Plaintiff alternated [] ministry services between six of [the DOC's] locations each week.” Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶ 9.^[3]

Starting in 2017, the plaintiff was subjected to “Defendants' antisemitic and discriminatory verbal, written, administrative and threatening physical assaults.” Compl. ¶ 8. The plaintiff first complained regarding the mistreatment on October 4, 2019 by means of a “letter to respondent saying that respondent was harassing [him] on the basis of his Jewish identity.” Time Line (ECF No. 29) at 1. At the time of the letter, “Director Williams was demanding that Rabbi Praver and Rabbi Ostrozynski cover all 16 correctional facilities for all 8 nights of Hanukah themselves together with whatever volunteers they could enroll.” Time Line at 1. The next month, November 2019, the plaintiff “set a meeting with 1199 Union to discuss concerns of inequity with Nat Roosa, a Union official,” and “wrote to Respondent's boss, Director Murphy seeking protection and redress ....” Time Line at 1. Until his retirement, Director Murphy “attempted to protect Rabbi[] Praver from Director Williams harassment [and] also intervened when Director Williams attempted to stuff Rabbi Praver's file with violations on false pretenses.” Time Line at 1.

On December 17, 2019, in response to the plaintiff implementing only 96 of the “128+ candle light ceremonies,” Director Williams “verbally assaulted Plaintiff disparaging him as a ‘Worthless Jew who didn't care about Judaism.'” Definitive Statement (ECF No. 18) at 4-5. Further,

“[w]hen Plaintiff advised [Director Williams] that his remarks were antisemitic and deeply offensive, [Director Williams] said ‘I'm not an antisemite, you just decided to call me names[]' [and] persisted justifying his behavior exclaiming, ‘[i]f you cared about Judaism, you would have made sure that every facility had candle lighting ceremonies all eight nights of Chanukah. You are a worthless Jew who doesn't even care about his own religion.'”

Definitive Statement at 5. “That is the day that complainant's formal effort to seek help and redress began with other state venues outside the agency of religious services of the DOC.” Time Line at 1.

On October 8, 2020, after formal efforts, including reaching out to Director Williams's supervisors did not provide “lasting relief,” “Plaintiff submitted a formal complaint of antisemitism and a hostile work environment with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities [(“CHRO”) and] also registered his complaint with the 1199 Union.” Definitive Statement at 5. The CHRO ordered mandatory mediation “which failed.” Definitive Statement at 5.

The plaintiff states that “[r]espondents both individually and jointly have committed . . .acts of harassment and retaliation against me because I am Jewish, and I previously filed a formal complaint against[DOC] for the same illegal behavior.” Compl. ¶ 13. The plaintiff also states that, following the failed mediation:

Defendant then launched a campaign of retaliation against Plaintiff throughout the state, and Defendant enrolled several of his trusted allies and subordinates to act as accessories to his crimes. First Defendant attempted to get Plaintiff fired but Plaintiff was a strong employee with excellent documented work history and was well liked by Commissioner Cook. Defendant shifted his efforts to forcing Plaintiff to resign. Towards this effort Defendant implemented a long and lamentable string of hostile retaliatory acts against Plaintiff....

Definitive Statement at 6. The plaintiff alleges that the following instances of harassment and retaliation occurred after his initial complaint was filed with the CHRO.

On November 4, 2020, the plaintiff's “CPE studies were ruled to be an ‘unapproved DOC program' that complainant must do on his own time.” Time Line 1. “Concurrently, all other chaplains in the department who were enrolled in the same course of study were approved to attend CPE classes on work time . . . because it was ruled to be an approved DOC program.” Time Line at 1.

On February 8, 2021 Director Williams sent out a directive limiting Passover services to individual worship and silent prayer instead of collective services.

On March 26, 2021, the plaintiff's primary payroll facility was permanently transferred “from Bridgeport Correctional Center [(“BCC”)], where Plaintiff had been located since 2013, to Cheshire Correctional Institute [(“CCI”)].” Time Line at 1; Compl. ¶ 10. While the plaintiff's primary payroll facility was first changed from BCC to CCI in April 2020, “[t]he arrangement was promised to be temporary due to Covid-19.” Compl. ¶¶ 10-11. At CCI, the plaintiff was under the supervision of Deacon Jose Robles who “. . . had been aiding and abetting Respondent Rev. Williams in hostile and discriminatory actions including those that were antisemitic.” Compl. ¶ 11. The plaintiff “repeatedly requested that he be moved back to BCC where there [was] a professional environment under Associate Chaplain Dr. Rev. Christie . . . but Director Williams w[ould] not cooperate.” Time Line at 1. The plaintiff contends that “Defendant Williams gave me a direct order to work under Defendant Robles with the intention of harassing and tormenting me . . . That is why Defendant Williams insists on keeping me under Defendant Deacon Robles' supervision.”^[4] Compl. ¶ 11.

During this time the defendants also made the plaintiff's use of a state vehicle, which he had been given to travel between facilities, “impractical” by requiring that the vehicle be kept at CCI instead of “at BCC where it had been kept prior to pandemic.”^[5] Compl. ¶ 13-b; Time Line at 1. While BCC was only ten minutes from the plaintiff's home, CCI was one hour away and “not on the way to . . . other facilities on the 195 Interstate corridor.” Compl. ¶ 13-a. Consequently, the plaintiff used his personal vehicle to go between facilities as use of the state vehicle “would add many unnecessary hours on the road.” Compl. ¶ 13-b. However, the DOC “refuse[d] to pay [the plaintiff] the standard reimbursements for the use of [his] personal vehicle.” Compl. ¶ 13-b.

From the period of July 21, 2021 to November 2021 Director Williams “harassed” the plaintiff by first denying, then approving, then subsequently rescinding his approval of the plaintiff's application to start a program at the York Correctional Institute (“YCI”) called “Gates of Understanding.” Compl. ¶ 13-c. Director “Williams' pattern of approving and rescinding his approval, [did] not comport with a normal process” and “no other denominational chaplains running programs experienced the same treatment.” Compl. ¶ 13-c. The plaintiff's program was eventually approved by “Defendant Garcia, two chains of command above Rev. Williams.” Compl. ¶ 13-c. “However, Defendants later disrupted that program by transferring the majority of the students to other facilities.” Compl. ¶ 13-b. In addition, “Director Williams advised [Deputy] Snyder on 11/21/21 that Gates of Understanding should not continue even though it was already in progress . . . [and] crudely disparaged Rabbi Praver and his program.” Time Line at 4. Deputy Snyder later “signaled back” in an email to the plaintiff that his “program will continue uninterrupted.” Time Line at 4.

On or around July 29, 2021, defendant Michael Lathrop, a corrections officer at YCI, “refused to send a Jewish inmate to [the plaintiff's] weekly Jewish service.”^[6] Compl. ¶ 13-f; Time Line at 2. Earlier that day, the plaintiff had reported defendant Lathrop for perpetrating an act of violence against female inmates in his care.

On “August 2, 2021,” while the plaintiff was “on a pre approved family sick day,” “[CCI] officers Reported to the inmates that...