United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO.
75)
JANET
C. HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The
plaintiff, Abraham Monger (“Monger”), brings
three claims of employment discrimination against the
Connecticut Department of Transportation (“DOT”)
and Jayantha Mather (“Mather”) in his individual
capacity (collectively, “the defendants”).
See generally Second Amended Complaint
(“Second Am. Compl.”) (Doc. No. 43). Count One of
the Second Amended Complaint alleges that the DOT denied
Monger promotional opportunities on the basis of his race in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e, et. seq., which prohibits disparate
treatment, harassment, and the creation of a hostile work
environment. See id. at 1-6. Count Two alleges that
Mather, who led the DOT division in which Monger worked,
violated Monger's rights under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. at 6-9.
Count Three alleges that the DOT further violated Title VII
by retaliating against Monger for filing an employment
discrimination complaint with the Connecticut Commission on
Human Rights and Opportunities (“CHRO”). See
id. at 10-11. The defendants now move for summary
judgment as to all three Counts. Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment (“Mot.”) (Doc. No. 75) at 1.
For the
reasons set forth below, the defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted.
II.
BACKGROUND
On June
20, 2008, the DOT hired Monger, an African American man, as
an Engineer Intern. Defendants' Local Rule 56(a)1
Statement of Facts (“Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1”)
(Doc. No. 75-2) at ¶ 1; Plaintiff's Local Rule
56(a)2 Statement of Facts (“Pl.'s L.R.
56(a)2”) (Doc. No. 88-1) at 1, ¶ 1, 14 ¶ 30.
Initially, Monger worked in the Bridge Safety Unit of the
DOT's Bureau of Engineering and Construction. Defs.'
L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 5; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 1, ¶
5. In March of 2011, however, Monger transferred to the
Bureau of Public Transportation's Office of Rails.
Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 8; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at
1, ¶ 8. Monger transferred because, inter alia,
(1) his relationship with one of his supervisors at the
Bureau of Engineering and Construction had deteriorated; (2)
he felt that he was not being given support in performing his
job; and (3) he believed that his education and expertise
were better suited for the Office of Rails. Defs.' L.R.
56(a)1 at ¶ 7; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 1, ¶ 7.
When
Monger first arrived at the Office of Rails, he reported to
Haresh Dholakia (“Dholakia”), a Transportation
Engineer 3 (“TE3”). Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶ 8; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 1, ¶ 8. Dholakia, in
turn, reported to Lev Laber (“Laber”), a
Transportation Supervising Engineer (“TSE”).
Id. Laber, in turn, reported to Mather, who led the
Office of Rails as its Principal Engineer. Id.
Mather was promoted from Supervising Engineer to Principal
Engineer in 2000. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 4;
Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 1, ¶ 4.
On July
15, 2011, Monger was promoted from Engineer Intern to
Transportation Engineer 2 (“TE2”). Defs.'
L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 10; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 1, ¶
10. That promotion became permanent after Monger
satisfactorily completed a six month probationary period as a
TE2 engineer. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 10; Pl.'s
L.R. 56(a)2 at 1, ¶ 10. In his evaluation of
Monger's job performance during this probationary period,
Haresh Dholakia (“Dholakia”), who was
Monger's immediate supervisor at the time, rated
Monger's job performance as “good” on a scale
ranging from “unsatisfactory” to
“excellent.” Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶¶ 8, 12; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 1, ¶¶
8, 12; Monger Deposition Exhibits (Doc. No. 75-5) at 4-5
(Dholakia's performance review).
In
2012, Dholakia received a promotion within the Office of
Rails, and Rosemary Rodriquez (“Rodriquez”)
became Monger's immediate supervisor. Defs.' L.R.
56(a)1 at ¶¶ 11, 13; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 1,
¶¶ 11, 13. Rodriquez had previously supervised
Monger when they both worked at the Bureau of Engineering and
Construction. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 13; Pl.'s
L.R. 56(a)2 at 1, ¶ 13. In her evaluation of
Monger's job performance for September 13, 2012, through
August 30, 2013, Rodriquez gave Monger an overall rating of
“satisfactory, ” which is less positive than his
previous rating of “good.” Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1
at ¶ 16; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 2, ¶ 16; Monger
Deposition Exhibits at 87-88. Rodriquez's evaluation also
identified several areas in which Monger could improve his
performance. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 17; Pl.'s
L.R. 56(a)2 at 2, ¶ 17.
In late
2013, Monger asked Mather, who headed up the Office of Rails
as its Principal Engineer, to reassign him to worker under
Daniel Young (“Young”). Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶¶ 19, 21, 22; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 2,
¶¶ 19, 21, 22. Monger expressed concern to Mather
about progressing his career under Rodriquez's
supervision. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 22; Pl.'s
L.R. 56(a)2 at 2, ¶ 22. According to Mather's
undisputed testimony, Mather assigned Monger to work under
Young's supervision “because [Monger] wanted to go
there.” Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 22; Pl.'s
L.R. 56(a)2 at 1, ¶ 22.
On
September 15, 2014, Young issued his evaluation of
Monger's job performance for the prior year, giving
Monger an overall rating of “satisfactory.”
Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 32; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at
3, ¶ 32. On March 20, 2015, Young issued Monger a
written warning for insubordination on the grounds that
Monger failed to follow Mather's order to not move
furniture within his assigned area. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶ 34; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 3, ¶ 34. The warning
was later rescinded and reduced to a written counseling.
Id. Approximately six months after this incident,
Young issued a review of Monger's job performance for the
period of September 2014 to September 2015. Defs.' L.R.
56(a)1 at ¶ 37; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 3, ¶ 37.
Young, again, rated Monger's overall performance as
“satisfactory.” Id.
During
his time at the Office of Rails, Monger applied for several
promotions from his TE2 position to a Transportation Engineer
3 (“TE3”) position. See, e.g.,
Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 54; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at
4, ¶ 54. In particular, his instant lawsuit for
employment discrimination is based on several TE3 promotional
opportunities that were given to Monger's co-workers.
See Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.'s
Opp'n”) (Doc. No. 88) at 6 (listing the TE3
vacancies at issue in this case).
A.
Reclassifications
According
to the undisputed written testimony of Vicki Arpin, DOT's
Human Resources Administrator, DOT employees can be promoted
through either (1) the formal job posting and selection
process, or (2) a reclassification of the position of an
incumbent employee. See Arpin Exhibits (Doc. No.
75-9) at 2, ¶ 8. Ordinarily, for an employee to be
promoted by reclassification, DOT management must submit a
formal reclassification request on behalf of the employee,
and the reclassification must be approved by the Human
Resources Administrator, the Division Head or Bureau Chief,
the DOT Chief Fiscal Administrative Officer, and the
Department of Administrative Services and Office of Policy
Management. Id. However, employees can also obtain
reclassification through a reclassification appeals process
that is administered by the Department of Administrative
Services. See id. at 3, ¶ 10. This appeals
process may result in reclassification to a higher position
if the Department of Administrative Services finds that the
employee is, in fact, performing the duties required by that
higher position. See id.
Monger's
lawsuit identifies three DOT employees who were promoted from
TE2 positions to TE3 positions through reclassification.
See Pl.'s Opp'n at 6. First, in 2011, Eric
Lloyd (“Lloyd”) filed a formal reclassification
appeal with the Department of Administrative Services,
seeking to be promoted from a TE2 position to a TE3 position
based on the claim that he was performing TE3 job duties.
Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 29; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at
2, ¶ 29. The Department of Administrative Services
conducted an audit of Lloyd's duties and determined that
he was performing the duties of the TE3 position.
Id. On January 12, 2012, Lloyd entered into a
stipulated agreement with his union, the DOT, and the
Department of Administrative Services that temporarily
reclassified Lloyd to a TE3 position. Id. Pursuant
to this agreement, Lloyd could apply to make his
reclassification permanent if he passed the Department of
Administrative Services' merit system examination for TE3
positions (“the TE3 examination”). Id.
This condition reflected DOT's general requirement that,
before an employee could become a TE3 engineer, that employee
must pass the TE3 examination. See Arpin Exhibits at
9, ¶ 33; Pl.'s Opp'n at 4. Monger did not pass
the TE3 examination until June 27, 2014. Defs.' L.R.
56(a)1 at ¶ 31; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 3, ¶
31.[1]
Second,
the Rail Administrator for the Bureau of Public
Transportation formally requested on February 7, 2014, that
Gustavo Melo (“Melo”) be reclassified from a TE2
engineer to a TE3 engineer. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶
26; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 2, ¶ 26. The request, which
was subsequently approved, justified the reclassification on
the grounds that (1) the Office of Rails needed to fill a TE3
vacancy in order to comply with federal regulations regarding
bridge inspection; and (2) Melo was qualified because he
possessed a degree in Civil Engineering, had passed the
requisite TE3 examination, and was performing the duties of a
TE3 bridge inspector. Arpin Affidavit at 3, ¶ 11;
Finally, on March 19, 2014, the DOT reclassified Ashish Patel
(“Patel”) to a TE3 position that involved
overseeing certain electrification projects. Defs.' L.R.
56(a)1 at ¶ 28; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 2, ¶ 28.
According to Arpin's undisputed written testimony, Patel,
who had an Electrical Engineering Degree and had passed the
TE3 examination in December 2013, had been performing the
duties of a TE3 engineer. Arpin Affidavit at 4, ¶ 12;
id at 12 (dated letter informing Patel that he had
passed the TE3 examination).
B.
Office of Rails
Monger
applied for two TE3 vacancies in the Office of Rails that the
DOT posted in January 2016. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶
73; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 5, ¶ 73. The initial
posting for these positions indicated that these jobs
required a degree in either Civil Engineering or Structural
Engineering. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 78; Pl.'s
L.R. 56(a)2 at 5, ¶ 78; Pl.'s Ex. 15 (Doc. No. 88-5)
at 43 (initial job posting). However, a February re-posting
of these vacancies modified the educational criteria,
indicating that a Civil or Structural Engineering degree was
“preferred, ” as opposed to
“required.” Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 80;
Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 5, ¶ 80; Pl.'s Ex. 16 (Doc.
No. 88-5) at 45 (job re-posting). Both versions of the
posting called for applicants with, inter alia,
“[c]onsiderable knowledge of [the] principles and
practices involved in transportation engineering such as
bridge design, foundations, highway design, transportation
facilities design, transportation planning, drainage or
hydraulics, research, pavement design, pavement management
and traffic[.]” Pl.'s Exs. 15 & 16.
On
March 9, 2016, Mather submitted an “Interview Selection
Report” to the DOT Human Resources in connection with
these two TE3 vacancies in the Office of Rails. Defs.'
L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 84; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 5, ¶
84. The Interview Selection Report summarized the name of
each job applicant; their race and gender; the interview
date; and the three-member selection committee's
explanation for why a particular candidate was recommended or
not recommended for the position. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶ 84; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 5, ¶ 84; Arpin
Exhibits at 5, ¶ 19; id. at 30 (Interview
Selection Report).
Of the
24 candidates who applied for the two TE3 positions, 17 were
not interviewed, including Monger. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶ 88; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 6, ¶ 88. The
Interview Selection Report indicated that Monger was denied
an interview because he did not have a degree in Civil or
Structural Engineering. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 89;
Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 6, ¶ 89. Monger had a Bachelor
of Science Degree in Civil Engineering Technology at that
time, although he later obtained a Master's Degree in
Civil Engineering in September 2016. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1
at ¶¶ 2, 3, 90; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 1,
¶¶ 2, 3; id. at 6, ¶ 90. Eight other
applicants were also not interviewed because they did not
possess a degree in Civil or Structural Engineering,
including three who, like Monger, held degrees in Civil
Engineering Technology. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶¶ 89, 90; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 6, ¶¶
89, 90. The Interview Selection Report further indicated that
all of the candidates who were interviewed for these
vacancies possessed a degree in Civil or Structural
Engineering, including the two applicants who were ultimately
selected for the position: Brett McKiernan
(“McKiernan”) and Jason Vincent
(“Vincent”). Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶¶ 83, 86, 87; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 6,
¶¶ 83, 86, 87.
C.
Division of Bridges
On
October 30, 2015, the Bureau of Engineering and Construction
posted several TE3 vacancies in its Division of Bridges.
Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 54; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at
4, ¶ 54. The job description outlined an array of
responsibilities relating to bridge design and inspection,
including, inter alia, managing consultants,
overseeing bridge repair and replacement projects, responding
to bridge emergencies, and acting as a liaison between towns
and the state. See Bhardwaj Exhibits (Doc. No.
75-12) at 8 (job posting). The posting called for candidates
with, inter alia, knowledge of highway and bridge
construction materials and methods; the ability to analyze
bridge and structural design problems; and the ability to
work cooperatively with other Department units, consultants,
towns, and state and federal agencies. Id.
The
interview selection panel tasked with filling these vacancies
consisted solely of members of the Bureau of Engineering and
Construction. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 54; Pl.'s
L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 54. Accordingly, Mather, who was
employed in the Office of Rails, had no role in selecting
applicants to fill these vacancies. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶ 64; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 64.
According
to the Interview Selection Report produced in connection with
these TE3 job openings, Monger was among the ten applicants
who applied for the positions. Bhardwaj Exhibits at 9-12
(Interview Selection Report). Although Monger was interviewed
for the vacancies on December 11, 2015, he was not offered a
position. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 54; Pl.'s L.R.
56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 54. Instead, the interview selection
panel selected the following five applicants: Gustavo Melo
(“Melo”), Rosemary Rodriquez
(“Rodriquez”), Ryan Martin
(“Martin”), Gregory Funk (“Funk”),
and Michael Waite (“Waite”). Defs.' L.R.
56(a)1 at ¶ 56; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 56.
Melo
and Rodriquez were already TE3 engineers in the Office of
Rails when they applied for the TE3 vacancies in the Division
of Bridges. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 54; Pl.'s
L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 54. Martin and Funk, on the other
hand, were both TE2 engineers seeking to be promoted to TE3
engineers. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 56; Pl.'s
L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 56. Finally, Waite was a new hire
who had previously worked at a consultant engineering
company. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 61; Pl.'s L.R.
56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 61.
As
documented in its Interview Selection Report, the selection
committee determined that Monger was less experienced and
less qualified than the successful applicants. Defs.'
L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 62; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶
62; Bhardwaj Exhibits at 9-11 (Interview Selection Report).
In particular, the panel noted that Monger had received
“satisfactory” ratings on his job performance
reviews. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 62; Pl.'s L.R.
56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 62. It further noted:
[Monger] provided very brief answers to all the questions and
although [he] hit a couple of key points on some of them, he
did not provide detailed or comprehensive responses to any of
the questions.
Bhardwaj
Exhibits at 11; see also Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶ 62; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 62.
As for
the five successful applicants, the Interview Selection
Report noted that all but one of them received
“excellent” ratings on their job performance
reviews. Bhardwaj Exhibits at 9-10; Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶ 62; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 62. The
exception was Waite, a new hire who had 15 years of
experience working for a consulting firm on bridge
inspection. Bhardwaj Exhibits at 10; Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1
at ¶ 61; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 61.
For
each successful candidate, the Interview Selection Report
also documented the specific knowledge or experience that, in
the panel's opinion, made the candidate qualified for the
position. Bhardwaj Exhibits at 9-10. For Melo, the selection
committee highlighted, inter alia, his extensive
experience in managing consultants, and his responses to
interview questions, which responses “demonstrated a
clear understanding of all phases of bridge engineering,
including both design and inspection.” Id. at
9; see also Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 57;
Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 57. With respect to
Rodriquez, the panel noted, inter alia, her
“extensive background in DOT materials testing, ”
her “extensive experience in designing bridges and
managing consultants, ” and her problem solving
abilities, as demonstrated by her “handling of a
difficult emergency declaration project[.]” Bhardwaj
Exhibits at 9; see also Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶ 57; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 57. In the case
of Martin, the panel cited examples of Martin's interview
responses that demonstrated his “thorough understanding
of both the design and inspection of bridges, ”
including, inter alia, “his responses to the
question for the NBI bridge ratings/element level
inspection.” Bhardwaj Exhibits at 10; see also
Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 59; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at
4, ¶ 59. The panel also noted that Martin had recently
acquired a Principal Engineer License; that he had won the
DOT Teamwork award; and that his previous experience working
as a consultant made him a “valuable candidate.”
Bhardwaj Exhibits at 10; see also Defs.' L.R.
56(a)1 at ¶ 59; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 59.
With respect to Funk, the panel noted, inter alia,
that he had extensive knowledge of “the purpose and
types of bridge joints and bridge procedures”; that he
“was instrumental in writing [ ] the new Load Rating
Manual”; that he had “good field experience in
inspecting bridges due to his previous experience working for
a consultant”; and that he had demonstrated his
leadership and management skills by training co-workers in a
new software used for load rating bridges. Bhardwaj Exhibits
at 10; see also Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 60;
Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 60. Finally, regarding
Waite, the panel noted, inter alia, that he had
demonstrated extensive knowledge and experience with DOT
bridge inspection procedures, including 15 years of
experience as a bridge inspection team leader working for a
consultant engineering company. Bhardwaj Exhibits at 10;
see also Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 61;
Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 61. The panel also
highlighted Waite's knowledge of “the types of
bridge joints, performance shortfalls, [and] the
‘NBM' Component Rating System.” Bhardwaj
Exhibits at 10; see also Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶ 61; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 4, ¶ 61.
D.
Division of Hydraulics and Drainage
On
November 13, 2015, the Bureau of Engineering and Construction
posted a TE3 position in its Division of Hydraulics and
Drainage. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 68; Pl.'s L.R.
56(a)2 at 5, ¶ 68. The position “required, among
other things, ‘considerable knowledge' of
hydrologic and hydraulic engineering related to storm
drainage systems, culverts, highway or railroad bridges over
waterways, dams and related facilities.” Defs.'
L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 68; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 5, ¶
68; Masayda Exhibits (Doc. No. 75-15) at 7 (job posting).
Mather was not involved in the selection process for this TE3
position. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 72; Pl.'s L.R.
56(a)2 at 5, ¶ 72.
As
summarized in the Interview Selection Report produced in
connection with this TE3 vacancy, there were five applicants,
including Monger. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 70;
Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 5, ¶ 70; Masayda Exhibits at 9
(Interview Selection Report). Two of the applicants, Eric
Buckley (“Buckley”) and Michael Mastroluca
(“Mastroluca”), were given offers, which they
ultimately declined to accept. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at
¶ 70; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at 5, ¶ 70. The
selection committee noted that both of those applicants
“[d]emonstrated a thorough knowledge of hydrology,
hydraulics, storm drainage design, environmental permitting
and software applications.” Masayda Exhibits at 9;
Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 70; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at
5, ¶ 70. With respect to the three applicants who were
not offered the position, including Monger, the Interview
Selection Report noted that they lacked “minimal
experience in Hydraulics and Drainage.” Masayda at 9;
Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 at ¶ 71; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 at
5, ¶ 71.
E.
Division of ...