Gorham v. Town of Trumbull Board of Education
7 F. Supp. 3d 218
D. Conn.2014Background
- Gorham (African American, 46) sues Town of Trumbull Board of Education for race/color/age discrimination under Title VII, ADEA, and CFEPA, and retaliation for CHRO filing.
- Gorham worked as a night custodian from Aug 25, 2003 until Nov 19, 2010, when he resigned under alleged duress following a disciplinary investigation.
- BOE's union entered a memorandum (dated Aug 23, 2010) allowing Gorham to resign in lieu of termination in exchange for no grievance; Gorham resigned Nov 19, 2010.
- Kennedy (BOE plant administrator) investigated a missing instrument case; evidence included surveillance video showing Gorham handling items from Lost and Found and other custodial property.
- Disciplinary hearing on Nov 19, 2010 involved Gorham, union representative, Kennedy, Schneider, Bike, and McDougald-Campbell; Gorham resigned that day.
- Plaintiff alleges pretext, asserts others took similar items without termination; BOE contends theft and dishonesty justified the resignation and non-termination outcomes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie discrimination established? | Gorham shows protected class, qualified, adverse action, and inference of discrimination. | Gorham lacks evidence of discriminatory inference; conduct not comparable to others. | Gorham fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. |
| BOE's legitimate non-discriminatory reason for termination? | The reason is pretext; actions were not consistent with policy and policy history. | Theft, dishonesty, and loss of trust justify termination or resignation. | BOE has stated a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for termination. |
| Pretext and likelihood of discrimination? | Record shows pretext; Kennedy/Schneider statements suggest discriminatory motive. | No sufficient evidence of discrimination; inconsistencies do not prove pretext. | No evidence showing pretext; no discrimination proven; claims dismissed. |
| Retaliation claim viability? | BOE failed to reinstate after CHRO filing, implying retaliation. | Plaintiff abandoned retaliation claim; no causal link established. | Retaliation claim is granted summary judgment as to abandonment; no causal link shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext must show true discriminatory motive)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (credible evidence; jury question on material facts)
- Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (similarly situated standard for discrimination)
- Ruiz v. County of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2010) (qualification and minimal prima facie analysis)
- Owens v. New York City Hous. Auth., 934 F.2d 405 (2d Cir. 1991) (distinction between misconduct and qualification for job)
- Calabro v. Westchester BMW, Inc., 398 F.Supp.2d 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (misconduct and neutral reason analysis)