United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
DISMISS
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge
Plaintiff
works as a corrections officer and alleges that she has been
the subject of discrimination by the defendants because of a
disabling medical condition. I will grant in part and deny in
part defendants' motions to dismiss.
Background
The
following facts are set forth as alleged in the
complaint.[1] Plaintiff Millicent Barrett-Browning has
worked for the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC)
since 2004 and works as a corrections officer at the Hartford
Correctional Center. Doc. #1 at 3 (¶ 7). She suffers
from bladder dysfunction, which amounts to a disability for
which she can continue to work provided that she has a
reasonable accommodation to allow her to use a restroom
frequently. Ibid. (¶ 8).
From
2014 onward, Barrett-Browning was given unfavorable
employment evaluations and denied promotion to the position
of lieutenant. Id. at 5 (¶ 15). The complaint
does not say anything more about what happened in 2014. On
some unspecified date, when Barrett-Browning appealed from an
overall unsatisfactory rating, the DOC “scoffed”
at her and stated that she could not be promoted based on her
disability. Ibid.
According
to the complaint, “[s]ince on or about May 12, 2015,
and prior, the named defendants have harassed, intimidated,
failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff's physical
disability and retaliated against the plaintiff to the point
of exhaustion, requiring the plaintiff to go out on medical
leave in 2015.” Id. at 4 (¶ 10). In the
“summer of 2015, ” Barrett-Browning “took a
brief leave under the Family Medical Act.”
Ibid. (¶ 11). When she returned in the
“fall of 2015, ” she made “another request
for accommodation of her disabilities, assignment to a post
with a bathroom in close proximity to her assigned work
station, and sufficient and reasonable time to take bathroom
breaks as medically necessary to empty her bladder.”
Ibid. (¶ 10).
Defendants
denied her request. Ibid. “On or about
September 2015 and prior, ” Barrett-Browning sought
reasonable accommodations for her disability from the DOC but
the DOC and her supervisor (defendant John Newton)
“denied her request on an ongoing basis.”
Id. at 4 (¶ 9). Newton “regarded the
plaintiff's leaves as pre-textual, and harbored a
suspicion that the plaintiff was not disabled at all, but was
a malingerer.” Ibid. (¶ 12).
“When
the plaintiff returned from medical leave on or about
September 22, 2015, she was again denied a work assignment
near a bathroom until on or about July 31, 2016.”
Id. at 5 (¶ 13). “[F]rom approximately
2015 onward, ” Barrett-Browning was “made to feel
unwelcome and unwanted at her place of employment, where she
was frequently ridiculed by colleagues.” Id.
at 6 (¶ 16); see also Id. at 4-5 (¶ 12)
(alleging that “[d]efendants developed animosity and
malice toward the plaintiff, and engaged in an intentional
campaign to deny her promotion to the position of lieutenant,
[and/or] otherwise harass[ed], intimidate[ed], [and] failed
to reasonably accommodate plaintiff's physical disability
and/or retaliate[ed] against complainant hoping the plaintiff
would resign from state employment”). “This
pattern of harassment, ridicule and intimidation
continues” to the present day. Id. at 5
(¶ 17).
On
October 19, 2018, Barrett-Browning filed a complaint
initiating this court action. The complaint names three
defendants: the Connecticut Department of Correction, Allison
Black, and John Newton. Black is alleged to be the warden of
the Hartford Correctional Center, and Newton is alleged to be
Barrett-Browning's supervisor; both Black and Newton are
sued in their individual capacity only. Id. at 2-3
(¶¶ 1, 5-6).
Barrett-Browning
alleges claims for disability discrimination in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation
Act, as well as constitutional claims for First Amendment
retaliation and equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Id. at 2 (¶ 1). The complaint seeks
money damages but makes no claim for injunctive relief.
Id. at 6 (¶ 19). Defendants have moved to
dismiss. Docs. #16, #34.
Discussion
The
standard that governs motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)
and Rule 12(b)(6) is well established. A complaint may not
survive unless it alleges facts that, taken as true, give
rise to plausible grounds to sustain the Court's subject
matter jurisdiction and to sustain plaintiffs' claims for
relief. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009); Kim v. Kimm, 884 F.3d 98, 103 (2d Cir.
2018); Lapaglia v. Transamerica Cas. Ins. Co., 155
F.Supp.3d 153, 155-56 (D. Conn. 2016). Although this
“plausibility” requirement is “not akin to
a probability requirement, ” it “asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Because
the focus must be on what facts a complaint alleges, a court
is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation” or “to accept as
true allegations that are wholly conclusory.” Krys
v. Pigott, 749 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2014).
Americans
with Disabilities Act
The
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131
et seq., broadly protects against disability-based
discrimination. “It forbids discrimination against
persons with disabilities in three major areas of public
life: employment, which is covered by Title I of the statute;
public services, programs, and activities, which are the
subject of Title II; and public ...