United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
W. EGINTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court initially dismissed plaintiff's claims after
defendants moved to dismiss and plaintiff failed to respond.
Aside from plaintiff's neglect, plaintiff's original
complaint failed to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level. After the Court's order dismissing the
case was entered, plaintiff moved for reconsideration based
on his unintentional failure to file responses, and the Court
granted plaintiff permission to amend his complaint to
address its deficiencies.
have now moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint
in its entirety, referencing and repeating arguments
proffered in their original motions. Indeed, plaintiff's
amended complaint is substantially similar to his original -
the most notable difference being the removal of certain
allegations that undercut the theory of his case.
amended complaint includes claims of gender discrimination
and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (Counts
I and II); municipal liability (Count III); violation of
constitutional rights to equal protection, due process, and
freedom of speech against Chief Esserman in his individual
capacity (Count IV); and intentional infliction of emotional
distress against Chief Esserman in his individual capacity
function of a motion to dismiss is "merely to assess the
legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight
of the evidence which might be offered in support
thereof." Ryder Energy Distribution v. Merrill Lynch
Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984).
When deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all
well-pleaded allegations as true and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the pleader. Hishon v. King,
467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). The complaint must contain the
grounds upon which the claim rests through factual
allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). A plaintiff is
obliged to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in
those contexts where such amplification is needed to render
the claim plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009).
of its labels, conclusions, and formulaic recitations of
elements of causes of action, plaintiff's amended
complaint offers few facts.
21, 2010, the New Haven Police Department issued a dress code
policy for the Investigative Services Unit, of which
plaintiff was a member. Plaintiff alleges that the policy
“was more strict regarding male officers [as compared
to] similarly situated female officers, ” but plaintiff
does not specify any differences in policy other than to say
that female detectives are permitted to dress in a manner
appropriate for the weather while male counterparts are not.
Plaintiff communicated his concerns about perceived gender
bias on many occasions, but defendants did nothing to change
1, 2012, plaintiff authored a “Memorandum and
Petition” seeking a revision of the dress code,
asserting that such revision would “allow male
detectives to perform their job functions more effectively[,
] safely, and beneficially ... particularly in very hot or
inclement weather.” On July 8, 2012, plaintiff provided
a copy of the memo to his union, which forwarded a copy to
Assistant Chief Archie Generoso, who responded with anger at
the following morning's lineup.
9, 2012, plaintiff received a letter from Chief Esserman,
ordering him to report the next day for discipline. Esserman
issued plaintiff a letter of reprimand.
December 20, 2012, Esserman again called plaintiff into his
office for the purpose of imposing discipline. Plaintiff
provides no details of this meeting.
alleges that supervisors told him to lay low because he was
being targeted by the Department.
7, 2013, a particularly hot day, a sergeant told plaintiff to
go home and change his outfit to conform with the dress code.
A female detective who was also violating policy was not
forced to change outfits. Plaintiff left work that day
because he was not feeling well.
September 19, 2013, Esserman ordered plaintiff to his office
for the purpose of imposing discipline but then ordered ...