657 F.Supp.3d 221
D. Conn.2023Background:
- Gerald Mallison, an African American employee, was hired in 2013 and promoted in 2018 to Fiscal Administrative Supervisor (FAS) at the Connecticut Office of Early Childhood (OEC).
- A white subordinate, Sarah Poulin, allegedly undermined Mallison (false financial data, hostile emails); Mallison performed acting fiscal administrative manager duties after a manager was terminated.
- OEC reposted the fiscal administrative manager position, lowered/changed qualification screening, and removed a preliminary screening step; Poulin applied and was ultimately hired in May 2020 and became Mallison’s supervisor.
- Mallison alleges race discrimination (failure to promote and related theories) against OEC and Commissioner Beth Bye; he filed an amended complaint without first seeking leave as previously instructed.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court dismissed Counts II (§§1981/1983 against Bye), III (CFEPA retaliation against Bye), and IV (CFEPA against OEC on sovereign immunity grounds), leaving only Mallison’s Title VII failure-to-promote claim against OEC to proceed.
Issues:
| Issue | Mallison’s Argument | Bye/OEC’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mallison can proceed on Title VII hostile work environment and/or failure-to-promote claims | Mallison alleged discriminatory treatment and failure to promote | Defendants moved to dismiss portions; earlier order limited individual liability under Title VII | Mallison abandoned hostile-work-environment theory; Title VII failure-to-promote claim against OEC proceeds |
| Whether Bye is individually liable under § 1981/§ 1983 (equal protection theory) | Bye participated in interviews, hired Poulin, and informed Mallison he was not selected; alleged manipulation of qualifications | Bye lacked personal involvement and discriminatory intent; supervisory liability requires personal action post-Tangreti | Dismissed: Mallison failed to plausibly allege Bye’s personal involvement or discriminatory intent under §§1981/1983 |
| Whether Mallison’s CFEPA retaliation claim against Bye is exhausted administratively | Mallison contends CHRO affidavit would have led to retaliation investigation | Defendants argue he did not exhaust CHRO remedies and CHRO filing didn’t raise retaliation against Bye | Dismissed: Mallison did not exhaust CFEPA retaliation claim against Bye before CHRO |
| Whether OEC’s CFEPA claim is barred by Eleventh Amendment / Ex parte Young exception | Mallison seeks prospective injunctive/declaratory relief against OEC under CFEPA, invoking Ex parte Young | Defendants assert sovereign immunity; Ex parte Young doesn’t allow suits against state agencies or for past/state-law violations | Dismissed: Eleventh Amendment bars CFEPA claim against OEC; Ex parte Young inapplicable (agency defendant, past discrete acts, and state-law claim) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (requiring factual plausibility; no conclusory recitals)
- Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609 (2d Cir. 2020) (no special supervisory-liability rule; liability requires each official’s own actions)
- Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004) (traditional supervisory-involvement standards discussed)
- Brown v. City of Oneonta, N.Y., 221 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2000) (elements for § 1981 discrimination)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (requiring personal involvement for individual liability)
- Kaytor v. Electric Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (CFEPA retaliation analyzed like Title VII retaliation)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (Ex parte Young doctrine for prospective relief against state officials)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (state-law claims against state officials/agencies barred by Eleventh Amendment)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (Eleventh Amendment limits federal judicial power over states)
- Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635 (Ex parte Young requires allegation of ongoing federal-law violation)
- Faber v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2011) (draw all reasonable inferences for Rule 12(b)(6) analysis)