Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garay v. Manchester Police Dept.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

April 26, 2018

MARIA GARAY, Plaintiff,
v.
MANCHESTER POLICE DEPT. CHIEF MONTMINY, LIEUTENANT GRANT, LIEUTENANT ELLSWORTH SERGEANT ROSSETTI, OFFICER WAGNER, Defendants.

          RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

          Warren W. Eginton, Senior U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff Maria Garay alleges that defendants Manchester Police Department (“MPD”), Chief Montminy, Lieutenant Grant, Lieutenant Ellsworth, Sergeant Rossetti, and Officer Wagner are liable for violations of Title VII and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act ("CFEPA") due to national origin, ancestry, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination; hostile work environment; and retaliation. In addition, she alleges the common law actions of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

         Defendants move to dismiss the state law claims and the Title VII claims for sexual orientation discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliations claims.

         Plaintiff does not contest dismissal of her CFEPA and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. However, plaintiff opposes the dismissal of the Title VII and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

         BACKGROUND

         The following background is taken from the allegations of the complaint, which are considered to be true for purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss.

         Plaintiff has worked as a police officer for MPD since December 2001. In 2006, after she became a Field Training Officer (“FTO”), plaintiff was responsible for training new officers.

         In June 2015, plaintiff noticed that she was not being assigned any new recruits. She confronted Lieutenant Grant, who admitted that one or more sergeants were retaliating against her for passing a certain officer through the FTO Program. After this discussion, plaintiff endured a series of reprisals and escalating harassment, including, inter alia, being shunned by other officers; being told to meet with her union representative after indication that she was subject to an investigation; receiving a text stating, “Fucking nasty bitch” from an officer; and finding a porcelain angel doll with broken legs, arms and wing in her laundry bag.

         On October 7, 2015, plaintiff, who was then pro se, filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (“CHRO”). In her CHRO complaint, she asserted national origin, ancestry and gender discrimination in violation of CFEPA and Title VII.

         The CHRO's release of jurisdiction was dated June 27, 2017. On September 25, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant complaint. The defendants were served on October 5, 2017.

         DISCUSSION

         The 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 & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

         Sexual Orientation Discrimination

          Defendants assert that sexual orientation discrimination is not recognized as a plausible Title VII claim. However, the Second Circuit recently overruled its prior precedent by holding that sexual orientation discrimination is actionable Title VII sex discrimination. Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.