United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
A. BOLDEN DISTRICT JUDGE
Williams brought this action against the Connecticut
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and four of the
DOC's employees. Compl., ECF No. 1; Am. Compl., ECF No.
7. Mr. Williams alleges that he is a male, African-American
DOC employee who has experienced harassment, discriminatory
treatment, and retaliation by the Defendants because of his
race and gender in violation 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-60 et
seq. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4-7, Counts One and Two,
ECF No. 7. He also claims that the Defendants
violated his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, and that Defendant Palmer
defamed him. Am. Compl. at Counts Three and Four, ECF No. 7.
Mr. Williams seeks front pay and benefits, injunctive and
declaratory relief, compensatory, “expectancy, ”
and punitive damages, and costs and attorney's fees.
Id. at Requests for Relief.
have moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety for
various reasons under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No.
26. Because Mr. Williams failed to properly serve the
Defendants, the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 26, is
GRANTED in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(2).
However, this dismissal is without prejudice to Mr. Williams
serving the Defendants with process properly within thirty
(30) days of this Order.
Williams is an African-American male who serves in the Navy
reserves. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6, ECF No. 7. He alleges
that the DOC hired him as a corrections officer in 1999.
Id. ¶ 36. He claims that he was subject to
specific incidents of discrimination during his employment as
occasion, Mr. Williams claims that he was transferred to work
at a particular correctional institution, Corrigan, because a
set of keys went missing, but that the Defendants took no
such action against the white officers “involved in the
situation.” Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Defendant
Palmer allegedly accused Mr. Williams of losing the keys and
asked him to account for the keys and write a report about
them. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. Defendant Palmer also
allegedly knew, at the time, that another white officer had
taken the keys home. Id. ¶ 29.
another instance, Mr. Williams claims that he was questioned
about why he had not changed some surveillance tapes, but
that he was on light duty and was physically unable to change
the tapes. Id. ¶ 11. He claims that one of the
Defendants was responsible for changing the tapes and that no
white officers were questioned or treated the way he was.
Id. ¶¶ 12-13.
Williams also alleges that Defendant Corvin required him to
sign the DOC log book when he was on duty, while other
officers were not required to do so. Id. ¶ 14.
He claims that this selective enforcement of the rules was
discriminatory. See e.g., id. ¶59a.
Williams also alleges that the Defendants gave him
unfavorable work assignments on a discriminatory basis. He
claims that, in 2008, a merger occurred between the Corrigan
and Radgowski facilities. Id. ¶ 37. In the
context of this merger, he alleges that white officers were
assigned to work at the facility with which they were more
familiar, but he was not. Id. ¶¶ 37-38. He
claims that Defendant Corvin was responsible for this
decision. Id. ¶ 24. He also alleges that white
officers generally have the freedom to choose their posts,
but he does not. Id. ¶ 47.
Williams claims that he passed the Lieutenant examination
around 2012 but, despite his “excellent” scores
on the examination and lack of a disciplinary record, he was
allegedly denied a series of promotions beginning on or about
November 29, 2013. Id. ¶¶ 41, 48. By
comparison, he alleges that the DOC has promoted several
white officers, including a female, white officer to the rank
of Lieutenant after it knew or should have known that she had
engaged in “unlawful sexual relations” with an
inmate in his cell. Id. ¶¶ 42-43, 49.
Since November 2013, DOC has allegedly promoted three
officers to the rank of Lieutenant, all of whom were white.
Id. ¶ 50.
Williams alleges that Defendant Efie told him that he was not
given promotions because he worked on the third shift and
served in the Navy Reserves. Id. ¶51. But one
of the white officers who was promoted allegedly worked the
third shift, and another allegedly served in the Navy
Reserves. Id. ¶ 52.
Williams also claims that the DOC engages in a
“policy” of scoring a “large number”
exam takers as “superior” without a sufficiently
objective standard. Id. ¶ 44. In his view, this
scoring system has allowed the DOC to promote individuals on
an arbitrary basis and allegedly has had a disparate impact
on African-American officers. Id. ¶¶
Mr. Williams alleges that the Defendants filed
“retaliatory job evaluations and reviews, ”
“selectively” enforced requirements for
advancement, and failed to train and discipline employees
regarding discrimination. Id. ¶¶ 59a-b,
59e, 59h-j, 59o. He also claims that the Defendants failed to
provide adequate mechanisms for employees to complain about
discrimination. Id. ¶¶ 59k, 59n.
THIS COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION ...