United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
W. EGINTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
has filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's
complaint. For the following reasons, the motion for summary
judgment will be granted.
parties have submitted statements of undisputed facts,
exhibits and affidavits. These materials reflect the
following factual background.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
next day, Mclntyre emailed Burgos to state that she thought
the scores seemed odd and that she wanted to re-check them.
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.
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 ...