Boutillier v. Hartford Pub. Sch.
| Decision Date | 17 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | 3:13–cv–01303–WWE |
| Citation | 221 F.Supp.3d 255 |
| Parties | Lisa BOUTILLIER, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Margaret M. Doherty, Doherty Law Group, LLC, Wethersfield, CT, for Plaintiff.
Melinda B. Kaufmann, Pullman & Comley, Hartford, CT, for Defendant.
In this action, plaintiff Lisa Boutillier alleges that defendant Hartford Public Schools discriminated and retaliated against her based on her sexual orientation and physical disability in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act ("CFEPA") (Counts I-III); discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation in violation of Title VII (Count IV); discriminated against her based on her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (Count V); and constructively discharged her in violation of Connecticut law (Count VI).
Defendant has moved for summary judgment on all claims. For the following reasons, defendant's motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts are gleaned from the parties' statements of fact, affidavits, deposition transcripts, and other exhibit documentation.
Plaintiff commenced employment with the Hartford Board of Education at the Noah Webster Microsociety Magnet School ("Noah Webster") at the start of the 2006-2007 school year. She was recommended for hire to a sixth grade mathematics position by then principal Dee Cole. Within a few days of starting, plaintiff was moved to a fourth grade position. Days later, plaintiff was again moved to a kindergarten position, where she taught during the 2006-2007 school year. Cole was plaintiff's direct supervisor.
Cole also recommended plaintiff's spouse, Ginene Branch, for hire at Noah Webster.
On the last day of staff development before the 2006-2007 school year began, Cole informed plaintiff that Noah Webster was overstaffed. Cole gave Branch and plaintiff the choice as to which one wanted to stay at Noah Webster and which one wanted to move to a fourth grade science position at Hooker Elementary School. Plaintiff contends that Cole called plaintiff and Branch into her office with both of their resumes in front of her and saw that they went to the same art school, moved together, and taught at the same schools for almost 30 years, implicating Cole's knowledge of their relationship. Cole admits that it was unusual to allow two teachers to decide between themselves who would stay and who would go. Moreover, plaintiff asserts that it was well known among staff and parents at Noah Webster that she was gay and that Branch and plaintiff were a couple. When asked at deposition about knowledge of plaintiff's relationship with Branch, Cole responded: "I never learned that. I didn't know that.
That was never part of any knowledge that I knew, nor did I care to know." However, vice principal Vernice Duke, who worked alongside Cole for three years, stated in October 2012 that,
Branch chose to move to Hooker, and plaintiff stayed at Noah Webster. Plaintiff asserts that Cole told Branch that she would have first rights to return to Noah Webster when a position became available, but Cole maintains that she merely told Branch that she was welcome to apply for future available positions.
Plaintiff spoke to her union representative, Sue Frazer, concerned that she had been "outed" as gay by another teacher. Plaintiff asserts that Frazer warned her to ‘watch her back.’
Shortly after Branch left the school, a position opened at Noah Webster. When plaintiff approached Cole about the possibility of Branch filling the position, plaintiff alleges that Cole became very angry and stated, "Don't you tell me who to hire." Cole disputes making an agreement for Branch's return and testified, "That's not how it works anyway." Branch never returned to Noah Webster.
Plaintiff contends that Cole knew she was gay at the start of the 2006-2007 school year. At the end of that year, Cole rated plaintiff as "excellent" in her evaluation. Nevertheless, plaintiff maintains that Cole's treatment of her caused her to stop speaking at staff meetings. Another teacher's statement, taken as part of a subsequent internal investigation, corroborates plaintiff's perception of abrupt treatment at staff meetings.
For the 2007-2008 school year, plaintiff moved to teaching first grade. Plaintiff questioned the placement of a difficult student in her classroom because she had endured a similarly difficult student in her classroom the year before. Plaintiff asserts that Cole became angry and berated plaintiff in front of other staff.
Plaintiff alleges that when parents were upset that the bulk of behavioral problem students were placed in plaintiff's classroom, Cole accused her of improperly communicating to parents about other students' behavioral problems. Plaintiff denied sharing information and reported that the concerned parents were "room mothers" who were regularly present in the classroom. Cole allegedly announced to plaintiff that, "If you do anything that I consider to be unprofessional, it will be grounds for immediate dismissal."
At a meeting among Cole, plaintiff, and union representative Sue Frazer, Cole allegedly stated,
Cole rated plaintiff as "competent," the second highest rating for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years.
During the 2008-2009 school year, plaintiff was given a verbal warning for sharing confidential student information with parents; plaintiff denies doing so and testified that she was falsely accused. Plaintiff alleges that in November 2008, Cole screamed at plaintiff and refused to hear her explanation after an incident involving a student who repeatedly hit plaintiff, leaving her badly bruised. Cole wrote up a warning document about the student, but plaintiff asserts that she did not see the document until she reviewed her personnel file years later.
The parties disagree about how many times plaintiff applied for alternative positions during her tenure. She was not hired for any alternative positions to which she applied.
Vernice Duke assumed the part-time assistant principal position and became plaintiff's evaluator at Noah Webster at the start of the 2009-2010 school year. Duke evaluated plaintiff as "competent" for the 2009-2010 school year and noted no areas of weakness in plaintiff's teaching. The evaluation did designate several areas for growth and improvement.
Plaintiff alleges that during the summer of 2010, she and Branch encountered Duke, who upon seeing their wedding rings made a "nasty" face, indicative of disapproval. In response to this accusation, Duke stated that,
Defendant asserts that plaintiff was awarded tenure as of August 28, 2010, but plaintiff responds that despite the regular practice of notifying teachers in writing upon granting of tenure, she was never notified in writing and has no information on how or when tenure was awarded.
Duke rated plaintiff as "competent" for the 2010-2011 school year.
Plaintiff asserts that during a performance evaluation meeting she confronted and accused Duke of discriminating against her because of her sexual orientation. Duke denies this. Duke's statement, taken as part of the district's internal investigation, provides, "I have never had a conversation about [plaintiff's] sexual preferences with plaintiff." Yet, remarkably, as part of that same statement, Duke provides:
[Plaintiff] said to me that she usually does not tell people about her situation. Then she went on to explain that her significant other was a female. This conversation took place during her second year of working with me. I said to her that this had nothing to do with the performance of her job and that she was entitled to a private life just [like] everyone else. To go even further, [plaintiff] introduced me to [her spouse, Branch,] at some point.
In August 2011, prior to the start of the school year, plaintiff suffered a medical issue that resulted in absence for the first half of the school year. Plaintiff contends that after notifying the district of her need for treatment for an embolism
and a hysterectomy, Cole misled parents by telling them that plaintiff would not be returning to teach at Noah Webster, citing a "personnel matter" rather than informing the parents that plaintiff was on approved medical leave. A parent of one of plaintiff's students submitted an affidavit indicating the same. The parent was surprised to subsequently learn that plaintiff was ill, as from the parent's perspective, Cole had implied that there was a "disciplinary reason" for plaintiff's absence.
During her absence, plaintiff alleges that Duke called her at home, demanding to know her medical status and what medications she was taking. Plaintiff proffers that after she complained to Elaine Bonfiglio in human resources, Duke's calls stopped, but plaintiff maintains that Duke chastised her about her plans to return to Noah Webster with the risk of falling ill in front of the students.
Despite the fact that plaintiff's doctor only once extended plaintiff's medical leave, Cole complained at deposition that
Teacher Jen Wight was reassigned from her resource position to take over plaintiff's classroom in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Butler, 16-0543
...evidence that the legislature rejected the policy underlying that bill.").8 See, e.g., Boutillier v. Hartford Pub. Sch., No. 3:13-CV-01303-WWE, 221 F.Supp.3d 255, 2016 WL 6818348 (D. Conn. Nov. 17, 2016) ("[H]omosexuality is the ultimate gender non-conformity, the prototypical sex stereotyp......
-
Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.
...women, and not other men," Centola v. Potter , 183 F.Supp.2d 403, 410 (D. Mass. 2002) ; see also, e.g., Boutillier v. Hartford Pub. Sch. , 221 F.Supp.3d 255, 269 (D. Conn. 2016) ; Videckis v. Pepperdine Univ. , 150 F.Supp.3d 1151, 1160 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ; Terveer v. Billington , 34 F.Supp.3d......
-
Carter v. AutoZoners, LLC.
...and Title VII. 2. "The analysis of discrimination ... under the CFEPA is the same as under Title VII." Boutillier v. Hartford Pub. Sch., 221 F. Supp. 3d 255, 270 (D. Conn. 2016)(citing Kaytor v. Electric Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537, 556 (2d Cir. 2010)). 3. Plaintiff admits that she was not fir......
-
Zako v. Encompass Dig. Media, Inc.
...The CFEPA defines physical disability as 'any chronic physical handicap, infirmity or impairment . . . .'" Boutillier v. Hartford Pub. Sch., 221 F. Supp. 3d 255, 274 (D. Conn. 2016) (quoting Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-51(15)). Therefore, Zako has adequately alleged a disability under the CFEPA ......
-
"a Fresh Look": Title Vii's New Promise for Lgbt Discrimination Protection Post-hively
...317 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (holding that sexual orientation discrimination is actionable under Title VII); Boutillier v. Hartford Pub. Sch., 221 F. Supp. 3d 255, 269 (D. Conn. 2016) (same); EEOC v. Scott Med. Health Ctr., P.C., 217 F. Supp. 3d 834, 839 (W.D. Penn. 2016) (same).283. See Zarda v. Al......
-
Survey of 2016 Developments in Labor and Employment Law
...*4. [92] Id. at *5. [93] Id., citing New York Univ. Med. Ctr. v. N.L.R.B., 156 F.3d 405, 410 (2d Cir. 1998). [94] Id. at *6, *7. [95] 221 F. Supp. 3d 255 (D. Conn. 2016). [96] Id. at 268. [97] 521 F. 3d 130, 139 (2d Cir. 2008). [98] 490 U.S. 228, 251 (1989). [99] Boutillier, 221 F. Supp. 3d......