Hampton v. Branch

• Decision Date: 13 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 3:18-cv-1445 (VAB),3:18-cv-1445 (VAB)
• Citation: Hampton v. Branch, No. 3:18-cv-1445 (VAB) (D. Conn. Jun 13, 2020)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: SECRETT HAMPTON, Plaintiff, v. JUDICIAL BRANCH, et al., Defendants.

SECRETT HAMPTON, Plaintiff, v. JUDICIAL BRANCH, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:18-cv-1445 (VAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

June 13, 2020

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Secrett Hampton ("Plaintiff") has sued the State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch, Stephen Grant, Deborah Fuller, and John Fitzgerald (collectively, "Defendants") for violating her constitutional rights as secured by the U.S. Constitution and the Connecticut Constitution. Am. Compl. ECF No. 41 at 1, ¶ 1 (Aug. 28, 2019). She alleges disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, harassment and retaliation because of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Id. at 1-2, ¶¶ 1-3, 5. She also alleges three state law claims: violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, failure to train and supervise, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 2, ¶ 6.

Defendants have moved to dismiss. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 43 (Sept. 11, 2019) ("Defs.' Mot.").

For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part. As to her federal claims, the only remaining claim will be Ms. Hampton's Title VII claim against the Judicial Branch. The three state law claims—Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, failure to train, intentional infliction of emotional distress—will proceed to at least the summary judgment stage.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Allegations

Ms. Hampton, an African American woman living in New Haven, Connecticut, Am. Compl. at 3 ¶¶ 8-9; works as a Juvenile Detention Transportation Officer (JTO) in the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch's Court Support Services Division in the Juvenile Residential Services Unit, id. at 3, ¶ 12. She alleges having "been subjected to discriminatory and hostile treatment at the workplace, and harsher discipline, up to and including termination, than her non African American counterparts." Id. at 3, ¶ 14.

On October 21, 2016, Ms. Hampton and "her sole assigned partner, Aquil Abdul-Salaam," also African American, allegedly "transported a known dangerous juvenile inmate to a medical appointment." Id. ¶ at 4, 15-16. The juvenile inmate recently had "assaulted a seasoned male staff member at the facility . . . [allegedly] choking and severely injuring the staff member, requiring hospitalization." Id. at 4, ¶ 17. The same juvenile inmate allegedly previously had "attempted to kick out the doors of the transport van" while Ms. Hampton was transporting him, causing her "to pull over and await the arrival of additional staff to proceed safety." Id.

On this occasion, the juvenile inmate allegedly "was placed in the most restrictive mechanical restrains [sic] available and permissible by [D]efendant's rules and policies, including leg shackles, handcuffs and a belly chain secured around his waist attached to the handcuffs." Id. at 4, ¶ 18.

The juvenile's appointment allegedly took place in a public physician's office, where "children and elderly members of the public and others [allegedly] were present." Id. at 4, ¶ 19. While in the physician's office, the juvenile inmate allegedly "defeated his restraints," meaning that the unsecured belly chain attached to his handcuffs allegedly was "ready [for] use as adeadly weapon." Id. ¶ 20. He "refused to comply" with Ms. Hampton and fled the medical office. Id. at 5, ¶ 21.

Ms. Hampton and Mr. Abdul-Salaam allegedly "followed the inmate at a safe distance according to defendant Judicial Branch's policy[] but were unable to safety restrain him and return him to custody." Id. at 5, ¶ 22. They returned to work, "and each completed incident reports of the escape." Id. at 5, ¶ 24. "The inmate was later rearrested and returned to [D]efendant Judicial Branch's custody." Id. at 5, ¶ 23.

Before the end of her shift later that day, Mr. Fitzgerald, Superintendent of the Judicial Branch, and Jimmy Gomez, shift supervisor of the Judicial Branch, allegedly approached Ms. Hampton and told her to hand in her badge. Id. at 5, ¶¶ 25-26. She alleges that Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Gomez "immediately placed [her] on unpaid administrative leave" before any investigation had been conducted. Id. at 5, ¶ 27. Ms. Hampton allegedly "remained on unpaid administrative leave for a protracted time," as Defendants allegedly "refused and failed to conduct a timely investigation . . . . " Id. at 6, ¶ 30.

Ms. Hampton also believes that "[D]efendants reported [her] to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF), alleging physical and emotional neglect of the inmate." Id. at 5, ¶ 28. She allegedly appealed the DCF investigation which concluded neglect. Id. at 5, ¶ 29.

On October 24, 2016, Ms. Hampton allegedly "was placed on Administrative Suspension without pay . . . ." Id. at 7, ¶ 37. She remained on unpaid suspension until she was terminated over a year later. Id.

On February 3, 2017, Defendants allegedly terminated Ms. Hampton. Id. at 6, ¶ 31. Ms. Hampton alleges that the decision to suspend without pay and subsequently terminate heremployment was recommended by Ms. Fuller, id. ¶ 32, and that Mr. Grant "made the final decision to suspend without pay and to terminate the plaintiff . . . ," id. at 6, ¶ 33. Ms. Hampton alleges "the defendants relied upon the unsupported findings of DCF to punish the plaintiff" and that the unsupported findings "were reversed on appeal to that agency and set aside on April 2, 2018." Id. at 6, ¶ 34. In her view, DCF relied on testimony "neither credible nor substantiated by objective witnesses." Id. ¶ 35.

On March 16, 2018, an arbitrator found "that the defendant Judicial Branch 'lacked just cause' to suspend [ P]laintiff, and ordered she be made whole for the period of suspension, from October 24, 2016 to February 3, 2017." Id. at 7, ¶ 37.

On May 23, 2018, Ms. Hampton's termination "was converted to a thirty workday suspension without pay[,]" in accordance with a second Union Arbitration Award. Id. Ms. Hampton received lost wages and employment benefits, less the thirty workday period of suspension. Id. She received no overtime pay for the period between October 24, 2016 and May 23, 2018.

Ms. Hampton alleges that she was treated more harshly than similarly situated employees who are not African American. JTO Carissa Laudano, who is Caucasian, allegedly "was involved in a substantially similar incident with the same defendants in the instant matter." Id. at 7, ¶ 39. When a juvenile inmate escaped Ms. Laudano's care, she allegedly failed to follow the Judicial Branch's policy; and both "the inmate and [Ms.] Laudano were injured as a result and both required medical attention . . . ." Id. at 8, ¶ 41.

Ms. Laudano allegedly was neither placed on unpaid administrative leave pending an investigation nor terminated. Id. at 8, ¶ 42. Although she had only been with the Judicial Branch less than a year, Ms. Laudano allegedly was promoted. Id. at 8, ¶ 43.

Ms. Hampton received a right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and timely filed this action. Id. at 8, ¶ 45.

B. Procedural History

On August 24, 2018, Ms. Hampton filed a Complaint against the Judicial Branch State of Connecticut, Stephen Grant, Deborah Fuller, and John Fitzgerald. Compl., ECF No. 1 (Aug. 24, 2018).

On January 16, 2019, Defendants filed a timely motion to dismiss. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 24, (Jan. 16, 2019).

On May 2, 2019, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss, noting Plaintiff's failure to respond. Reply, ECF No. 31 (May 2, 2019).

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed an objection to the motion to dismiss, and the Court held a motion hearing. Obj., ECF No. 38 (July 22, 2019); Minute Entry, ECF No. 39 (July 23, 2019).

On July 24, 2019, the Court dismissed Ms. Hampton's federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. Ruling and Order, ECF No. 40 (July 24, 2019).

On August 28, 2019, Ms. Hampton filed an Amended Complaint. Am. Compl.

On September 11, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Defs.' Mot.; Supp. Mem., ECF No. 43-1 (Sept. 11, 2019) ("Defs.' Mem.").

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Rule 12(b)(2)

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the "plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant." In re Magnetic Audiotape Antitrust Litig., 334 F.3d 204, 206 (2d Cir. 2003). Theplaintiff therefore must make a prima facie case showing that jurisdiction exists. Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 673 F.3d 50, 59 (2d Cir. 2012).

"The prima facie showing must include an averment of facts that, if credited by the ultimate trier of fact, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant." Id.; see also Glenwood Sys., LLC v. Med-Pro Ideal Sols., Inc., No. 3:09-cv-956 (WWE), 2010 WL 11527383, at *2 (D. Conn. May 4, 2010) ("At this stage of the proceedings, if the court relies upon pleadings and affidavits, the plaintiff must make out only a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction, and the affidavits and pleadings should be construed most favorably to the plaintiff."), aff'd, 438 F. App'x 27 (2d Cir. 2011), as amended (Sept. 23, 2011) (citing CutCo Indus., Inc. v. Naughton, 806 F. 2d 361, 365 (2d Cir. 1986)).

A court considers the facts as they existed when the plaintiff filed the complaint. See id. (citing Klinghoffer v. S.N. C. Achille Lauro Ed Altri-Gestione Motonave Achille Lauro in Amministrazione Straordinaria, 937 F.2d 44, 52 (2d Cir. 1991)).

B. Rule 12(b)(5)

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil procedure 12(b)(5) due to insufficient service of process "must be granted if the plaintiff fails to serve a copy of the summons and complaint on the defendants pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules [of Civil Procedure], which sets forth the federal requirements for service." Rzayeva v. United States, 492 F....