United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS.
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Hubert (“Plaintiff”) has sued the State of
Connecticut Department of Correction (“Defendant”
or “DOC”) and various individual DOC employees.
See generally Am. Compl., ECF No. 10. Specifically,
she has sued Captain Kyle Godding (“Godding”),
Deputy Warden Michael Davis (“Davis”), Correction
Officer Kevin Curry (“Curry”), Lieutenant Derrick
Austin (“Austin”), and Lieutenant Cicero
Callender (“Callender”) (collectively, the
“Individual Defendants”), each in his official
capacity (collectively “Defendants”), alleging
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1985, 1986, and 1988.
now move for summary judgment. ECF No. 121. Defendants also
move to dismiss this action under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 37(b) or 41(b). ECF No. 126. Ms. Hubert has moved
for reconsideration. ECF No. 134. Ms. Hubert has also moved
to consolidate. ECF No. 141.
following reasons, the motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED. The motion to dismiss is
DENIED as moot, the motion for
reconsideration is DENIED as moot, and the
motion for consolidation is DENIED as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDA. FACTUAL
Hubert, an African American woman, has been employed by the
DOC since February 1998. Am. Compl. ¶ 4. The DOC is a
cabinet-level, para-military, state agency responsible for
confining and supervising accused and sentenced criminal
defendants in correctional institutions, centers, and units,
and it administers medical, mental health, rehabilitative,
and community-based service programs across the state.
Id. ¶ 12; Miller Aff. ¶ 4, Defs.' SMF,
Ex. 5, ECF No. 121-8. The DOC employs more than five hundred
officers and civilian employees state-wide, and it has
confirmed compliance with federal and state
antidiscrimination laws and regulations. Am. Compl. ¶
Hartford Correctional Center
February 13, 1998, through September 10, 2009, Ms. Hubert was
assigned to the Hartford Correctional Center (“Hartford
CC”). Defs.' SMF ¶ 3; Hubert Aff. ¶ 6,
Pl.'s SMF, Ex. 17, ECF No. 130-34. During this time,
Michael Davis was the Captain at Hartford CC. Defs.' SMF
stationed at Hartford CI, Ms. Hubert worked with Lieutenant
Derek Austin. Hubert Dep. at 19:1-12. Ms. Hubert testified
that, beginning in 1999, Mr. Austin would come to her post
and expose himself to Ms. Hubert and make lewd comments to
Ms. Hubert in front of other officers. Id. at
66:1-8. Mr. Austin was, according to Ms. Hubert, told to stay
away from Ms. Hubert, and eventually transferred to a
different DOC facility on November 29, 2001. Id. at
65:24-25, 55:9-14. The last contact Ms. Hubert had with Mr.
Austin was in 2002. Id. at 19:11- 14.
Hubert testified that she filed reports about Mr. Austin and,
according to Ms. Hubert, these reports went unanswered.
Id. at 63:14-21. She explained that the DOC's
Affirmative Action Unit was a “joke.”
Id. at 63:15.
also at Hartford CC where Ms. Hubert worked with Officer Kyle
Godding. Hubert Dep. at 305:13-17. Ms. Hubert testified that
Mr. Godding would come to Ms. Hubert's post in main
control and asked if Ms. Hubert would give Mr. Godding a pair
of her underwear to smell and told her she was beautiful and
that he had a crush on her. Hubert Aff. ¶ 61. At one
point, Mr. Godding allegedly stated that he knew Ms. Hubert
was being considered for a promotion and said he would put in
a good word for Ms. Hubert and then asked for a hug and a
2005, Ms. Hubert no longer worked with Mr. Godding, but they
stayed in touch with one another. Hubert Dep. at 305:15-20.
Administrative Directive 2.2, Sexual Harassment, Effective
September 15, 2008
September 15, 2008, the DOC issued Administrative Directive
See generally Sept. 15, 2008, Miller Aff., Ex. C,
ECF No. 121-11 (superseding Administrative Directive 2.2,
dated May 1, 2007).
The Gym Room Incident
spring 2009, Mr. Davis, Ms. Hubert's supervisor,
allegedly asked her to leave her post and accompany him to
“the gym room.” Hubert Dep. at 44:9-17. Mr. Davis
allegedly told Ms. Hubert that there was missing equipment,
and he needed her assistance in finding it. Id. at
44:23- 25. Ms. Hubert testified that she was looking for the
missing equipment when Mr. Davis tried to kiss her.
Id. at 45:6-8. With her back against a wall, Mr.
Davis allegedly put his hand inside Ms. Hubert's
underwear and asked if he could put the tip of his penis
inside her. Id. at 45:10-46:9. Mr. Davis allegedly
unzipped his pants and asked Ms. Hubert to perform a sexual
act for him. Id. at 46:11-16. At this point, someone
walked by, and Ms. Hubert tried to walk away, but Mr. Davis
allegedly restrained her. Id. at 46:21-22.
than to her husband, Ms. Hubert did not report the incident,
Defs.' SMF ¶ 33, because she feared retribution.
Hubert Aff. at ¶ 35. Also, Mr. Davis's wife worked
in the 5. By filing a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEOC) or the Connecticut Commission on Human
Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) . . . .C. A complaint of
violation of this Directive may be made directly to any of
the following in any of the Affirmative Action Office
“and would have been privy to the substance of [Ms.
Hubert's] complaint.” Id.
Davis was transferred to Cheshire CI. Hubert Dep. at
Administrative Directive 2.17, Employee Conduct, Effective
January 31, 2009
Directive 2.1, Employee Conduct, became effective on January
31, 2009. See generally Jan. 31, 2009,
Admin. Directive 2.1, Miller Aff., Ex. A., ECF No. 121-9.
York Correctional Institute
September 11, 2009, through December 8, 2009, Ms. Hubert was
assigned to York Correctional Institute (“York
CI”), Defs.' SMF ¶ 3, and promoted to
Correctional Lieutenant. Hubert Aff. ¶ 62.
Gates Correctional Institute
December 9, 2009, through January 28, 2010, Ms. Hubert was
assigned to Gates Correctional Institute (“Gates
CI”). Defs.' SMF ¶ 3. Though Mr. Godding was
not stationed at Gates CI, Mr. Godding would call Ms. Hubert
from his facility and send her emails. Hubert Aff. ¶ 63.
December 29, 2009 Letter to Hamden Police Department
Rosalyn Williams accused Ms. Hubert of placing a woman who
was allegedly having an affair with Ms. Hubert's husband
in the trunk of Ms. Hubert's car and holding the woman
hostage. Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 29-30.
December 29, 2009, the police came to Ms. Hubert's home,
searched her vehicle, and found no body in the trunk of the
car. CHRO Compl. ¶ 16. That day, Ms. Hubert wrote a
letter to the Hamden Police Department on DOC letterhead.
Dec. 29, 2009, Hamden Ltr. at 1, Hubert Dep., Ex. 16, ECF No.
121-4 at 154. In the letter, Ms. Hubert stated that, earlier
that day, a police officer from the Hamden Police Department
arrived at Ms. Hubert's home and asked Ms. Hubert
questions about Ms. Williams. Id. Ms. Hubert
explained that Ms. Williams had a child with Ms. Hubert's
husband before Ms. Hubert married him. Id. According
to Ms. Hubert, Ms. Williams had called the police and
reported that Ms. Hubert threatened Ms. Williams at Ms.
Williams's house. Id. Ms. Hubert stated that Ms.
Williams had threatened Ms. Hubert's family and made
false reports due to Ms. Williams's infatuation with Ms.
Hubert's husband. Id. at 2.
January 27, 2010 Letter from Warden Kevin Gause
Hubert testified that, upon the recommendation of Ms.
McLaurin, on January 27, 2010, Warden Kevin Gause issued to
Ms. Hubert a letter informing Ms. Hubert that she failed a
promotional working test period and was “demoted”
to correctional officer. July 16, 2010, CHRO Compl. ¶
13. Ms. McLaurin, Ms. Hubert alleges, falsely accused of Ms.
Hubert of failing to comply with a direct order on November
30, 2009, and subsequently Ms. Hubert received an
unsatisfactory rating. Id. ¶ 13.
Gause's letter stated: “This letter is to inform
you that you failed your promotional working test period in
the position of Correctional Lieutenant and you will be
reverted to your former classification of Correction
Officer.” Jan. 27, 2010, Gause Ltr. at 1, Hubert Dep.,
Ex. 32, ECF No. 121-4 at 163. Mr. Gause notes that, during
the rating period, Ms. Hubert refused to fully comply with a
direct order in violation of Directive 2.17, resulting in an
unsatisfactory rating. Id. Ms. Hubert refused to
sign the letter. Id.
Miller, the DOC Director of Human Resources, testified that,
under the collective bargaining contract between the state of
Connecticut and the Connecticut State Employees Association,
SEIU Local 2001-which represents correctional supervisors
including lieutenants-Ms. Hubert was subject to a six-month
working test period. Miller Aff. ¶ 9. Mr. Miller further
testified that an internal investigation substantiated that,
on November 30, 2009, Ms. Hubert failed to fully comply with
a direct order from her supervisor. Id. ¶ 11.
Having failed the promotion working test, Ms. Hubert
“reverted” to her former position of correction
officer, effective January 29, 2010. Id.
¶¶ 10, 14.
Hartford Correctional Center
January 29, 2010, through December 1, 2010, Ms. Hubert was
assigned to Hartford CC, Miller Aff. ¶ 6, but during
this time, Ms. Hubert was out of work due to a work-related
injury. Hubert Aff. ¶ 6.
Administrative Directive 2.7, Employee Conduct, Effective
April 15, 2010
April 15, 2010, the DOC promulgated a revised Administrative
Directive 2.1, Employee Conduct. See generally Apr.
15, 2010, Admin. Directive 2.1, Miller Aff., Ex. B, ECF No.
121-9. All relevant provisions are identical to the January
31, 2009, Administrative Directive 21. Additionally the
Directive prohibits possessing “any personal electronic
wireless communication device (to include, but not limited
to, a cellphone, pager, blackberry device, [or] personal
digital assistant (PDA)).” Id. §
July 16, 2010 Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
16, 2010, Ms. Hubert submitted a complaint with the
Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
(“CHRO”). See generally July 16, 2010,
CHRO Complaint (No. 111014), Defs.' SMF, Ex. 2, ECF No.
121-5. In it, Ms. Hubert alleged that, on September 11, 2009,
Warden Kevin Gause promoted her to Correctional Lieutenant.
Id. ¶ 4. The promotion increased her salary by
$25, 000. Id. Upon promotion, Captain Sharon
McLaurin became Ms. Hubert's immediate supervisor.
Id. Referring to an affirmative action complaint she
filed on December 10, 2009, Ms. Hubert stated:
In my [December 10, 2009] complaint, . . . I allege, in part,
that Captain McLaurin “disrespected me as a female and
professional”, relating to me as being “Ghetto,
” deny me the opportunity for advancement by not
allowing me to “learn the desk duties” and not
giving me the recommendation letter I ask for. I also alleged
in my complaint that I was “placed in a hostile work
environment” with staff by Captain McLaurin telling my
peers (i.e. Lieutenant Wayne Crews, Lieutenant Craig Burnett,
Lieutenant Terrance O'Hanion, and Lieutenant Mr. Begun)
negative things about me “causing them to dissociate
themselves from me.” I also say in my complaint that I
was told by Captain McLaurin that “if I don't leave
York CI (Correctional Institute) I would be a Lieutenant for
the rest of my career.”
Id. ¶ 7. Ms. Hubert asserted that she had been
subject to harassment and unequal treatment based on her sex.
Id. ¶ 8. The Affirmative Action Unit determined
that Ms. Hubert's December 10, 2009, complaint was
unsubstantiated. Id. ¶ 9.
CHRO complaint, Ms. Hubert stated that, after Ms. Hubert
filed the complaint with the Affirmative Action Unit, Ms.
McLaurin's harassment increased. Id. ¶ 10.
Specifically, Ms. Hubert alleged that Ms. McLaurin issued a
poor evaluation in December 2009, recommended Ms. Hubert be
transferred to another facility,  and falsely accused Ms.
Hubert of doctoring an obituary to get time off for a
funeral, id.; see also Request for Funeral
Leave at 1, Hubert Dep., Ex. 33, ECF No. 121-4 at 163
(showing that Ms. Hubert's request does not include a
supervisor's signature and whether the request had been
approved or denied); Nov. 30, 2009, Attendance Warning at 1,
Hubert Dep., Ex. 21, ECF No. 121-4 at 162 (stating that Ms.
Hubert's had insufficient accrued sick leave and/or sick
family leave and noting that Ms. Hubert refused to sign the
warning and that a second attendance warning would result in
docked pay and a written reprimand), and that Ms. McLaurin
continued to deny Ms. Hubert desk training or coaching, July
16, 2010, CHRO Complaint (No. 111014) ¶¶ 10-11. Ms.
McLaurin gave Ms. Hubert a direct order to sign the warning,
and Ms. Hubert refused. Nov. 30, 2009, Attendance Warning at
September 2, 2010, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) issued a notice indicating
receipt of Ms. Hubert's CHRO complaint (No. 1110014) for
dual filing purposes (EEOC Charge No. 16A-2010-01267).
Defs.' SMF ¶ 5. The charge stated that the EEOC
“may suspend its investigation and await issuance of
the Agency's final finding and orders.” EEOC Charge
No. 16A-2010-01267 at 1, Defs.' SMF, Ex 3, ECF No.121-6.
The charge also advised that complainants are
“encouraged to cooperate fully with the Agency.”
August 28, 2013, the CHRO issued a finding of no cause. Aug.
28, 2013, CHRO No. 111014, Cause Finding, ECF No. 43-1. The
findings pertained solely to the fact that Ms. Hubert failed
her promotional test period, causing her to revert back to an
officer from lieutenant. Id. at 3. On January 10,
2014, the EEOC adopted the CHRO findings. Defs.' SMF
Cheshire Correctional Institute
December 5, 2010, through the time of this filing, Ms. Hubert
has been assigned to Cheshire Correctional Institute
(“Cheshire CI”). Hubert Aff. ¶ 6. Ms. Hubert
maintains: “It was my belief that by the time I got to
Cheshire CI, I was already ready to be black balled.”
Hubert Dep. at 38:1-2. Ms. Hubert believed that, at Cheshire
CI, “everyone knew everything about [her].”
Id. at 38:14-15. According to Ms. Hubert, her CHRO
complaint was the topic of rumors at Cheshire CI.
Id. at 38:18-19. Ms. Hubert could not specifically
recall, but believes it was Lieutenant Carolyn Hickman that
informed Ms. Hubert that supervisors had been talking about
Ms. Hubert. Id. at 38:22-25. Ms. Hickman, Ms. Hubert
testified, told Ms. Hubert that everyone at Cheshire CI hated
Ms. Hubert and that Ms. Hubert “should transfer
out.” Id. at 39:4-5.
Text Messages from Mr. Callender
in 2010, while touring the facility, Lieutenant Callender
allegedly would request hugs from Ms. Hubert. Hubert Dep. at
10:16-18. He allegedly asked her for hugs on four-to-five
separate occasions. Id. at 10:22. In 2010, Ms.
Hubert allegedly verbally reported this conduct to Ms.
Hickman, but does not recall Ms. Hickman's response.
Id. at 11:16-12:1. Ms. Hubert again reported Mr.
Callender's conduct to Ms. Hickman in 2011 or 2012, but
Ms. Hickman did not take the report seriously. Id.
Mr. Davis transferred to Cheshire CI, Ms. Hubert reported Mr.
Callender to Mr. Davis. Id. at 11:1. It was her
impression that Mr. Davis did not take the report seriously.
Id. at 12:12-19. Ms. Hubert testified at her deposition:
“There was nothing preventing [her] from going to
Affirmative Action. [Officers] have choices, whether
[officers] to go Affirmative Action, whether [officers] get a
lawyer, whether [officers] file it with CHRO. [Officers]
don't have to directly go to Affirmative Action.”
Id. at 76:22-77:1; see also Sept. 15, 2008,
Directive 2.2 § 9(B)(5) (permitting that a complaint may
be made by filing a complaint with the EEOC or CHRO). She
further explained: “Sometimes you just have to suck it
up and say, you know what I gotta get this. No one's
gonna help me, so I gotta-whether I'm acting like it
didn't happen with [Mr. Davis]. I gotta basically hold my
faith and stay strong for my family, because if I break down,
then I can't work and I can't feed my kids; I
can't pay my son's tuition.” Hubert Dep. at
81:11-17. She told Mr. Davis about Mr. Callender because Mr.
Davis was her supervisor and because she felt other people to
whom she had reported Mr. Callender failed to act.
Id. at 83:3- 84:22.
Ms. Hubert allegedly feared retaliation, she never reported
Mr. Callender to the Affirmative Action Unit. 13:4-7. She
also explained: “[E]very report that goes to
Affirmative Action always come[s] back
unsubstantiated.” Id. at 13:12-13.
2011, Mr. Callender allegedly sent Ms. Hubert a text message
calling her sexy, and asking when she was “going to
make it happen, ” to which she did not respond. Hubert
Dep. at 69:8-15. Ms. Hubert allegedly received other similar
text messages from Mr. Callender. Id. at 69:24. Ms.
Hubert shared the texts with her sister and perhaps Ms.
Hickman. Id. at 70:7-8.
Hubert testified in her deposition that she complained about
Mr. Callender's “inappropriate harassment” to
Director James Dzurenda by writing him a letter. Id.
at 75:22-25, 77:12.
Ms. Hubert complained, Mr. Callender allegedly began to treat
her differently than before. Id. 69:15-16.
The April 29, 2011 Letter
April 29, 2011, the DOC sent Ms. Hubert a letter. Apr. 29,
2011 Ltr. at 1, Hubert Dep., Ex. 17, ECF No. 121-4 at 156.
The letter informed Ms. Hubert that DOC was suspending Ms.
Hubert for one day for violating Administrative Directive
2.17 (Employee Conduct) and 6.6 (reporting of incidents).
Id. A DOC investigation substantiated that, on
December 29, 2009, Ms. Hubert had misused state property-a
computer, DOC Stationary, and her DOC position-for personal
gain. Id. The letter also stated: “[T]he
investigation substantiated that you failed to report that a
co-worker was harassing and threatening you when off
January 12, 2012, by written agreement, the DOC reduced the
suspension to a written violation. See generally
Stipulated Agreement, Hubert. Dep, Ex. 18, ECF No. 121-4 at
October 31, 2011 Incident
October 31, 2011, Ms. Hubert testified that she was drafted
for first shift, when she had previously advised her
supervisor that she had two medical appointments later that
day. Apr. 23, 2012, CHRO Compl. ¶¶ 11-14. Ms.
Hubert has a medical condition that causes exceedingly heavy
menstruation. Hubert Dep. at 31:18-20. Having no choice, Ms.
Hubert informed a supervisor, then Lieutenant Brett Mollin,
that she had to attend a medical appointment. Apr. 23, 2012,
CHRO Compl. ¶ 16. By that time, menses had
“drenched” her uniform pants, causing her
embarrassment and humiliation. Id. Finally, Mr.
Mollin released Ms. Hubert and completed an incident report.
Oct. 31, 2011, Incident Report at 1, Hubert Dep., Ex. 3, ECF
No. 121-4 at 110. As a condition of going home sick, Mr.
Mullins required Ms. Hubert to complete an incident report.
Incident Report 2011-10-071, Mr. Mollin stated that, while
posted as the Desk Lieutenant, Ms. Hubert was ordered for
First Shift. Id. Officer Hubert claimed to have a
Worker's Comp. appointment at 10:00 a.m. and requested to
be relieved. Id. Mr. Mollin consulted Ms.
Hubert's paperwork, in which there was a note that her
doctor's appointment scheduled for October 28, 2011, had
been rescheduled for November 1, 2011. Id. Soon
thereafter, Mr. Mollin received a facsimile from Yale Medical
Group stating that Ms. Hubert had an appointment scheduled
for later that day. Id. Mr. Mollin noted the letter
did not include a time for the appointment. Id.;
see October 31, 2012, Fax at 1, Hubert Dep., Ex. 3,
ECF No. 121-4 at 116 (noting Ms. Hubert's October 31,
2011, appointment but not indicating the time).
Mollin informed Captain Thomas Veno of the situation, and,
while doing so, Ms. Hubert called Mr. Mollin to say she was
going home sick. Oct. 31, 2011 Incident Report at 1. Mr.
Mollin, the report notes, requested an incident report and
asked if Ms. Hubert needed a ride home, which she declined.
Id. Ms. Hubert informed Mr. Mollin that she had
blood on her pants but did not need a new pair of paints.
Id. at 3. According to Mr. Mollin, Ms. Hubert never
informed him that she was experiencing heavy bleeding.
Id. Mr. Mollin further noted that Ms. Hubert was the
fifth out of fifteen officers who had been held over. Mollin
Aff. ¶ 4. He further explained that he did not ask Ms.
Hubert to prepare an incident report because she had engaged
in protected activity. Id. ¶ 4. He asked Ms.
Hubert to prepare an incident report after Ms. Hubert
indicated that she was going home sick. Id.
part, Ms. Hubert completed a medical incident report later
that day. Oct. 31, 2011, Medical Incident Report at 1, Hubert
Dep., Ex. 3, ECF No. 121-4 at 113. In it, she noted that she
was experiencing “abdominal cramping, bleeding, has MD
note for F/U appt with GYN.” Id. She also
completed a supplemental incident report. Oct. 31, 2011,
Supp. Report, Hubert Dep., Ex. 3, ECF 121-4 at 124. She
explained that someone had informed her that another female
who reported she was sick was allowed to go home without
issue. Id. at 4.
Hubert has offered a memorandum dated July 14, 2008,
regarding “Sick Leave Regulations and Proper
Protocol.” July 14, 2008, Memo at 1, Pl.'s SMF, Ex.
16, ECF No. 16, ECF No. 130-24. The memorandum provides:
“Regarding medical appointments, Sec.
5-247-4(a)(1) states that an eligible employee shall be
granted sick leave for ‘medical, dental or eye
examination or treatment for which arrangements cannot be
made outside of working hours.'” Id.
The memorandum also provides that verification of medical
appointments are required when a more than a half workday is
used for such purposes. Id.
Hubert is unsure whether Mr. Mollin knew of Ms. Hubert's
earlier CHRO case, but she knew that other supervisors knew
of it. Hubert Aff. ¶ 26. Ms. Hubert believes she had
suffered “[r]etaliation because of who [she is] and
just retaliation.” Hubert Dep. at 31:8-10.
day, October 31, 2011, Ms. Hubert sent Warden Jon Brighthaupt
a letter about the incident. Defs.' SMF ¶ 27;
see generally Oct. 31, 2011, Brighthaupt Ltr.,
Hubert Dep., Ex. 3, ECF No. 121-4 at 120. In the letter, Ms.
Hubert recounted the incident from earlier that day, ant
noted that she felt humiliated, embarrassed, and harassed due
to her race and gender. Oct. 31, 2011, Brighthaupt Ltr. at 2.
She alleges that, instead of allowing Ms. Hubert to attend to
a medical emergency, Mr. Mollin fabricated a reason not to
release her. Id. Ms. Hubert also asserts that she
would have had twenty-four hours to complete the incident
report; instead, Mr. Mollin made her complete the report
while covered in blood in front of male workers. Id.
Ms. Hubert also felt she was being retaliated against.
Id. at 3.
January 10, 2012, Mr. Brighthaupt forwarded a letter to
DOC's Affirmative Action Unit to determine if the
incident involved sexual harassment, retaliation, or violated
other DOC regulations. Id. ¶ 28.
The December 23, 2011 Incident
December 23, 2011, Ms. Hubert was placed on paid
administrative leave because of the December 29, 2009,
incident involving Ms. Williams. Am. Compl. ¶ 29. Before
returning to work, Ms. Hubert was required to undergo a
“Fit for Duty Exam, ” id. ¶ 31,
after which she was cleared to work. Hubert Dep. at 125:16.
December 27, 2011, and March 23, 2012, Ms. Hubert was
continuously out of work on various leave statuses. Lester
Aff. ¶ 5, Defs.' SMF, Ex. 7, ECF No. 121-14.
April 23, 2012 Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
April 23, 2012, Ms. Hubert filed a complaint with the CHRO
(No. 1110014), alleging retaliation since filing an August
2010 CHRO complaint. Apr. 23, 2012, CHRO Compl. ¶ 11. ECF
No. 43-1 at 25. In it, she recounted the October 31, 2011,
incident. Id. ¶¶ 11-21. Ms. Hubert raised
her denial of medical attention and not being allowed to seek
medical treatment. Id. ¶ 22. Ms. Hubert
explained: “Lieutenant Mollins [sic] purposely
humiliated, embarrassed and harassed me, and subject[ed] me
to a work environment that would be considered hostile to any
female employee. I believe that Lt. Mullins [sic]
was retaliating against me because I filed a CHRO complainant
[sic].” Id. ¶ 16.
also described the December 23, 2011 incident in further
detail. Id. ¶ 33. Specifically, Ms. Hubert
alleged that various other officers, all white men who had
committed violations-e.g., engagement in a physical
altercation with another office or being arrested for
violating a protective order-were not placed on
Administrative Leave. Id.
also described difficulties receiving workers'
compensation payment for work-related injuries. Id.
April 2012 and January 2013, Ms. Hubert was out of work on
various leave statuses, working only March 23-27, 2012.
Defs.' SMF ¶ 89; Lester Aff. ¶¶ 6-7.
June 11, 2012 Amendment of the April 23, 2012 CHRO
11, 2012, Ms. Hubert amended the April 23, 2012 CHRO
complaint. See generally June 11, 2012,
CHRO Amend't. ECF No. 43-1 at 12. While incorporating
allegations from the April 23, 2012, CHRO complaint, Ms.
Hubert outlined further difficulties with her workers'
compensation claim and FMLA leave. Id. ¶¶
Hubert also recounted the May 17, 2012 incident, where
Captain Bryan Viger allegedly called Ms. Hubert at home to
inform her that she was to attend a Loudermill hearing for an
employee conduct violation. Id. ¶ 26. She
This hearing [was] based on the false allegation that I
reported via text message that “I was in a new place no
signal I'm need you to bond me out of jail.” I
reported that the text was on my son's phone and that the
text was not truthful. Allegations that I was hindering an
investigation because I didn't have the text message in
my phone when the police came to my home are misleading and
false. At the time of the incident I was off duty, at home,
minding my own business. . . . This case was being
investigated by Captain Kelly from security division.
to Ms. Hubert, on May 18, 2017, the Deputy Commissioner's
secretary called to inform Ms. Hubert that her meeting with
the Deputy Commissioner has been canceled because of Ms.
Hubert's pending CHRO complaint. Id. ¶ 27.
Kyle Godding's August 16, 2012 Text Message
Hubert testified that she was friends with Mr. Godding until
he sent Ms. Hubert photographs of his penis. Hubert Aff.
¶¶ 67-68. Other than telling her husband, Ms.
Hubert allegedly did not report the text message to anyone at
DOC because, at the time, she was on leave. Hubert Aff.
¶ 71. Ms. Hubert testified that, consistent with DOC
Administrative Directive (“Directive”), she
“reached out to” the Permanent Commission on the
Status of Women, Directive 2.2 § 9(C)(5), Ex. C, ECF No.
121-11 (“The independent consultant appointed by the
Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) . . .
.”), and to her therapist, pastor, ...