Gomez v. Metropolitan District
10 F. Supp. 3d 224
D. Conn.2014Background
- Gomez, an African-American former Diversity/Affirmative Action Officer at the Metropolitan District, worked there 2001–2011; he was transferred in 2006 and later alleged increasing adverse treatment and exclusion from hiring decisions.
- In 2010–2011 Gomez filed internal complaints and CHRO charges (initially over a 2010 laptop incident; amended complaints alleged exclusion from hiring and denial of promotion); he sought a release of jurisdiction from the CHRO on Sept. 15, 2011.
- In late Sept. 2011 the District curtailed Gomez’s duties (site visits reassigned to a consultant) and on Oct. 7, 2011 terminated him as part of a 20-position RIF after loss of $2.1M in CRRA funding; Gomez promptly filed another CHRO complaint alleging discrimination and retaliation.
- Gomez applied for a Special Services Administrator position (open-competitive internal process); after layoff he was permitted to interview but was subject to security screening as a former employee; McLaughlin (white) was hired after interview and writing exercise.
- Gomez sued asserting race discrimination (Title VII, §1981, CFEPA) and retaliation (Title VII, §1983, CFEPA) based on his termination and failure-to-hire; the District moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliatory discharge (termination) | Gomez: termination shortly after seeking CHRO release and after protected complaints shows causal link and pretext for RIF selection | District: RIF justified by $2.1M funding loss; Gomez’s duties had been reassigned to consultant so position was eliminable | Denied — triable issues on causation/pretext (temporal proximity, inconsistencies re: selection process, statistical/circumstantial evidence) |
| Discriminatory discharge (race) | Gomez: overrepresentation of Black employees in RIF and other circumstantial evidence show race motive | District: legitimate nondiscriminatory RIF process tied to funding cut; selection based on reducible duties | Granted — statistics and evidence insufficient to infer termination because of race; no triable issue on discriminatory termination claim |
| Failure to hire (discriminatory) | Gomez: hiring of interim white employee to permanent post and supposedly subjective interview process indicate pretext | District: non-discriminatory explanation — McLaughlin performed better in interview/writing exercise; objective test used | Granted — employer offered legitimate reason (better interview/sample), Gomez did not show pretext for discrimination in hiring |
| Failure to hire (retaliatory) | Gomez: post-termination CHRO complaint and prior protected activity, combined with timing and general corporate knowledge, show retaliation in refusal to rehire | District: hiring decisionmaker lacked knowledge of post-termination CHRO complaint; selection based on interview performance | Granted — prima facie established by timing, but no sufficient evidence of pretext tying hiring decision to retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 708 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2013) (McDonnell Douglas applied to retaliation; temporal proximity analysis)
- Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (but-for causation standard for retaliation after Nassar)
- Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation claims require but-for causation)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity must be very close to support causation alone)
- Pollis v. New Sch. for Soc. Research, 132 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1997) (limitations of small-sample statistical proof)
- Stratton v. Dep’t for the Aging for City of New York, 132 F.3d 869 (2d Cir. 1997) (statistical and circumstantial evidence can be probative when accompanied by other proof)