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.

West v. City of Hartford

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

May 21, 2018

PAUL WEST, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HARTFORD, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          WARREN W. EGINTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         In this action, plaintiff Paul West, who is an officer in the City of Hartford's Police Department, alleges that the City of Hartford discriminated against him based on his race and gender in violation of Title VII.

         Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's complaint. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment will be granted.

         A. BACKGROUND

         The parties have submitted statements of undisputed facts, exhibits and affidavits. These materials reflect the following factual background.

         Plaintiff commenced employment as a police officer with the City of Hartford's Police Department in 2003. In 2014, plaintiff took the examination for promotion to Lieutenant. Pursuant to an agreement between defendant and The Hartford Police Union, the written examination and oral interview scores are combined at a rate of fifty percent each, and a final score with a corresponding rank is assigned to each candidate; additionally, veterans are allowed to use "veteran's point" to increase their final scores on promotional exams.

         The promotional exam was administered by Booth Research Group, Inc. ("Booth"). A candidate must first pass a written examination with a score of at least 70 percent. The candidates who pass the written examination are invited to sit for an oral interview.

         Plaintiff received a passing score of 74.050 on the written exam. After his interview, plaintiff received the raw score of 94.1667. Two different panels conducted the oral interviews, but each candidate only interviewed with one panel. Plaintiff interviewed with Panel One.

         Booth scored the exam. Kelly Mclntyre, Booth's Senior Managing Research Consultant, received the oral interview scores from the panels, standardized the scores from the panels, combined the scores and then restandardized the scores.

         Plaintiffs oral interview score was calculated to be 94.1667. Plaintiff asserts that he was told by Councilman Kyle Anderson that he had placed first. However, defendant has submitted evidence showing that plaintiff was ranked second with his score of 94.1667.

         Mclntyre emailed the ranked scores to then-Director of Human Resources, Henry Burgos. Mclntyre did not provide any oral interview scores to any other individual at the City of Hartford. Burgos also did not share the scores with anyone outside of the Human Resources Department.

         The next day, Mclntyre emailed Burgos to state that she thought the scores seemed odd and that she wanted to re-check them.

         Dr. Mclntyre recalculated the oral interview scores of each candidate and found that she had made an error in calculating the scores of those individuals who interviewed with Panel One. After her re-calculation, plaintiff had a final oral interview score of 90.7088, which placed him fourth on the interview rankings. The scores and rankings of other candidates also changed.

         Booth prepared only one final score, which ranked candidates based on the equal weight of the written examination and oral interview. This final score used the updated oral interview scores, rather than the scores found to ...


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.