Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, (SC 16796)

• Decision Date: 28 October 2003
• Docket Number: (SC 16796)
• Citation: 832 A.2d 660,266 Conn. 492
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NORWALK v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES ET AL.

266 Conn. 492

832 A.2d 660

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NORWALK v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES ET AL.

(SC 16796)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued December 2, 2002.

Officially released October 28, 2003.

Borden, Norcott, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js. Thomas N. Sullivan, filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff).

Robert A. Richardson, with whom, on the brief, was Regina M. Hopkins, for the appellee (defendant John T. Saunders).

Opinion

ZARELLA, J.

The plaintiff, the board of education of the city of Norwalk, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from the decision of the named defendant, the commission on human rights and opportunities (commission),¹ finding that the plaintiff had discriminated against the defendant, John T. Saunders, on the basis of race, color and age. The primary issue in this appeal is whether the commission properly applied the burden shifting framework used in employment discrimination cases. We conclude that the commission properly applied the framework to Saunders' race and color discrimination claims.² Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. Saunders is a black, African-American male who has been employed by the plaintiff since 1974 as a teacher at Nathan Hale Middle School (Nathan Hale) in Norwalk. In May, 1997, Saunders and several other applicants applied for the position of assistant principal at Nathan Hale. When Saunders applied for this position, he was forty-nine years old and had twenty-three years of teaching experience, as well as a myriad of other qualifications and credentials.³ The plaintiff does not dispute that Saunders met the minimum qualifications for the position of assistant principal.

The job posting for the assistant principal position listed required qualifications,⁴ preferred qualifications,⁵ and duties and responsibilities. In preparation of this posting, Joseph Cloherty, the principal of Nathan Hale, prepared a list of what he believed to be the required and preferred qualifications for the assistant principal position.⁶ Cloherty did not include pupil placement team⁷ and special education experience in his list. The job posting did indicate, however, under the duties and responsibilities section, that the assistant principal would be required to attend pupil placement team meetings and work closely with the special education department. Additionally, the job posting listed computer scheduling as a preferred qualification.

In anticipation of the interview process, Cloherty assembled a committee to interview the applicants for the position. The committee consisted of four people: Cloherty, Joanna Seiter, a parent of one of the students attending Nathan Hale, Karen Kinlock, a teacher at Nathan Hale, and Alexandria Reilly, an eighth grade African-American student at Nathan Hale. Cloherty met with the committee to discuss the questions that the candidates would be asked. When Cloherty met with the committee, he had knowledge of the identity of all of the applicants and had reviewed their applications. During the meeting, in response to a question that Seiter had asked about the necessary qualifications for the assistant principal position, Cloherty explained that his primary needs were familiarity with computer scheduling and pupil placement team experience. Nathan Hale has a large population of special education students and pupil placement teams serve to evaluate students in need of special education.

When the interviews were conducted, the plaintiff maintained an affirmative action plan that required, inter alia, that the interviewing committee be "composed of the Director of Personnel, Director of Curriculum and Assessment, other administrators selected by the Superintendent and the Superintendent . . . ." The plan further provided that "[t]eachers and parents may be included in the interviewing process." In addition, the plan required that "the interviewing team" have minority representation and that all applicants for an assistant principal position be interviewed by the principal of the school for which the position is sought.

The plaintiff was not in compliance with its affirmative action plan. Ralph E. Sloan, the superintendent of schools of the city of Norwalk, the director of personnel, and the director of curriculum and assessment were not members of the interviewing committee as required by the plan. Sloan testified at the commission hearing that, in his fifteen years as superintendent, he never had interviewed candidates for assistant principal positions. Furthermore, although the minority representation requirement technically was fulfilled by virtue of the presence of Reilly, the plan did not specifically authorize student representation on the committee. Although the plan did not expressly prohibit such representation, it did not expressly authorize nonemployees other than parents to participate in the interview process. There is no evidence that a student previously had participated in an interview of this kind.

In June, 1997, after the interview process was complete, Saunders received a letter informing him that he had not been selected for the assistant principal position.⁸ There were six candidates who had interviewed for the position and Saunders ranked third.⁹ The applicant who ranked second was an African-American woman who had experience in computer scheduling. Michael McGrath, the applicant who ranked first, was offered the assistant principal position.¹⁰ McGrath, a white male who was twenty-eight years old at the time of his application for the assistant principal position, had been hired as a guidance counselor at Nathan Hale in 1996. When McGrath applied for the position in May, 1997, he had been employed for one year at Nathan Hale, had two years of classroom experience and had worked as a guidance counselor for four years, which included work outside of Nathan Hale. Although McGrath did not have the same experience and credentials¹¹ as Saunders, he had been trained by the former assistant principal and had assisted him with computer scheduling. McGrath also had experience with the pupil placement team process and had attended special education meetings. Although Saunders was computer literate, he did not have experience with computer scheduling. The guidance counselors at Nathan Hale were being trained, however, to do computer scheduling for the assistant principals, and Sloan, the superintendent, stated that it would not be difficult for someone to learn computer scheduling.

Reilly, the student member of the committee that interviewed the applicants, ranked Saunders first. The majority of the committee, however, ranked McGrath first, primarily because of his experience with pupil placement teams and computer scheduling. Seiter testified at the commission hearing that she did not place much weight in McGrath's lack of teaching experience inasmuch as Cloherty had indicated that pupil placement team experience and familiarity with computer scheduling were important qualifications for the assistant principal position. As we previously have noted, Cloherty knew the identity of the applicants and had reviewed their applications before he met with the committee prior to the interviews. Specifically, before Cloherty had met with the committee, he knew that McGrath stated in his cover letter that he had pupil placement team experience.

After Saunders had been informed that another person was offered the assistant principal position, Saunders wrote a letter to Thomas Turner, the assistant superintendent of human relations. In his letter, Saunders asked several questions about the hiring procedures for administrators in Norwalk, including questions regarding the propriety of having parents and students serve on the committee that conducted the interviews. Turner responded to Saunders' inquiries by sending a letter and a copy of the plaintiff's affirmative action plan. In his letter, Turner referred Saunders to the specific provisions of the plan. Turner also stated that he had sent a letter to Sloan reminding him to comply with the plan. The plaintiff did not take any further action in response to Saunders' letter or Turner's letter to Sloan.

On September 10, 1999, Saunders filed a complaint with the commission alleging that the plaintiff had discriminated against him in the terms and conditions of his employment in that the plaintiff did not promote him to the position of assistant principal because of his race, color and age in violation of General Statutes § 46a-60 (a) (1),¹² Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (a) (1994),¹³ and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a) (1994).¹⁴ The commission investigated Saunders' allegations and found reasonable cause to believe that discrimination had occurred. After conciliation efforts had failed, the complaint was certified to public hearing. A hearing was held in April and May, 2000, before a commission referee.

Thereafter, the commission issued its decision. The commission made the following relevant findings: (1) Saunders met his burden of proving a prima facie case of race, color and age discrimination; (2) the plaintiff met its burden of producing legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision not to hire Saunders; (3) the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons that the plaintiff produced were not credible; and (4) Saunders met his burden of proving that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons advanced by the plaintiff were false. The commission thereupon ruled in favor of Saunders with respect to his race, color and age discrimination claims.

Pursuant to General Statutes §§ 4-183 (a)¹⁵ and 46a-94a,¹⁶ the plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the decision of the commission. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiff's...