Tatum v. Univ. of Hartford
| Decision Date | 16 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 3:19-cv-01546 (KAD) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | CALVIN TATUM, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD, Defendant. |
This action arises out of the termination of Plaintiff Calvin Tatum (“Tatum” or the “Plaintiff”) from his employment as a custodial shift supervisor with the Defendant, the University of Hartford (the “University” or the “Defendant”). The Plaintiff alleges age discrimination and retaliation against the University under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46a-60 et seq. Pending before the Court is the University's motion for summary judgment on all claims which the Plaintiff opposes. The Court has considered the parties' memoranda and exhibits and held oral argument on August 24, 2021. For the reasons that follow, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
The following facts are taken from the Defendant's Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Material Facts (“Def.'s LRS ” ECF No. 32-2), the Plaintiff's response thereto and Statement of Additional Material Facts (“Pl.'s Resp., ” ECF No. 37) and the parties' exhibits. The facts set forth by the Defendant are admitted by Plaintiff unless otherwise indicated.
Tatum who is currently 78 years old (see Tatum Aff. ¶ 1, Pl.'s Ex. J, ECF No. 37-10), was hired by the University to work as a custodian in its Facilities Department beginning on March 27, 2006. (Def.'s LRS ¶ 2.) He was promoted to First Shift Supervisor on May 23, 2010. (Id.) Keith Fernandez (“Fernandez”), the University's Assistant Director of Facilities, became Plaintiff's supervisor in late 2014. (Id. ¶ 3.) Tatum received positive performance evaluations from Fernandez in early 2014 and early 2015-including a “Fully Satisfactory” rating in the 2015 review. (Id. ¶ 4.)
On November 17, 2015, Fernandez issued Tatum a written warning in which he asserted that Tatum had failed to take corrective action in the face of an employee's abuse of the University's attendance policy-thus failing to fulfill his obligations as the employee's supervisor. (See Ex. B-3 to Conley, Decl., ECF No. 32-4.) The written warning further represented that the disciplinary letter that Tatum later drafted to the employee upon Fernandez's instruction failed to address the employee's time management problems adequately and minimized or made excuses for the employee's recurring tardiness. (See id.) The Plaintiff disputes the truth and the good-faith basis of Fernandez's allegations. He testified that the employee was permitted pursuant to his union contract to use personal time at the beginning or end of the workday-for instance, by logging in at 7:10 a.m. for a 7:00 a.m. start and using ten minutes of personal time-but that Fernandez disagreed with Tatum's interpretation of the union rules. (Tatum Dep. Tr. at 52:2-22, Pl.'s Ex. A ECF No. 37-1.) Tatum filed a grievance objecting to the warning and as a result the University removed it from his personnel file. (Def.'s LRS ¶ 6.)
Fernandez rated Tatum's performance only as “Satisfactory” in his April 2016 review. (Id. ¶ 7.) In addition to citing the written warning, which had been removed from Plaintiff's file the review also stated that the Plaintiff “has been personally addressed for displaying aggressive behaviors towards both staff and venders of the University” and that the Plaintiff continued to struggle with the time keeping system. (Ex. B-6 to Conley Decl.) Tatum again disputes the veracity of these representations. (See Tatum Aff. ¶ 5.) On December 15, 2016, Fernandez issued Tatum a documented verbal warning in which he questioned Tatum's ability to satisfy the obligations of his position based in part on the condition of the Lincoln Theatre before the University's fall commencement ceremony. (Def's. LRS ¶ 8; Ex. B-7 to Conley Decl.) The warning also cited in bullet-form Fernandez's concerns with a number of areas of Tatum's work- including daily building inspections, ability to respond to the University's changing needs, management of staff, quality and proper work completion, and communications with employees and supervisor. (Ex. B-7.) Tatum again challenges the good-faith basis for Fernandez's allegations; he testified that there was no problem with the condition of the Lincoln Theatre and that Fernandez made claims about finding things like papers and chewing gum on the backs of chairs that were not true. (Tatum Dep. Tr. at 58:16-25.) The Plaintiff further testified that he always conducted building inspections on a daily basis, that Fernandez had never expressed concerns regarding Tatum's responsiveness to the University's changing needs, and that the other bulleted items were fabricated in order to support Fernandez's issuance of an unfavorable annual review. (Id. at 61:13-25, 62:3-13, 63:2-8.)
The review that Fernandez issued in early 2017 ranked Tatum as not meeting expectations. (Def.'s LRS ¶¶ 9-10; Ex. B-8 to Conley Decl.) In areas of improvement Fernandez indicated, inter alia, that Tatum needed to better address behavioral issues with his staff and hold employees accountable and that he should spend more time inspecting buildings assigned to him; the review cited the December 2016 warning and repeated Fernandez's allegation that certain buildings assigned to the Plaintiff were found in subpar condition around commencement time. (Id.) The review also indicated that the Plaintiff needed to become more supportive of his supervisor and staff, spend more time learning and executing University policies, take better initiative in the areas of planning and problem solving, and complete paperwork during an eight-hour workday. (Ex. B-8.) Tatum refused to sign the review because he did not believe it accurately memorialized his performance. (Id.; Tatum Dep. Tr. at 65:9-15.) He testified that Fernandez's concerns about Tatum's support of his staff were disingenuous, that Tatum did support Fernandez, that he always completed paperwork during the workday, and that he took initiative in all of the areas that Fernandez identified as deficient. (Id. at 66:6-25, 67:1-4.) Tatum further testified that despite his disagreement with the review, he always followed Fernandez's instructions and attempted to take corrective actions. (Id. at 67:7-17.)
Fernandez next provided the Plaintiff with a written warning letter dated November 21, 2017. (Def.'s LRS ¶ 12; Ex. B-9 to Conley Decl.) The letter charges the Plaintiff with neglecting to address staff misconduct appropriately, including by drafting poorly written discipline documents, twisting facts on behalf of employees, and acting more as a union representative than a supervisor. (Ex. B-9.) It provides four examples of incidents highlighting the Plaintiff's failure to execute properly his supervisory responsibilities: (1) Tatum engaged in a shouting match with an employee, Gileon Jack, indoors while classes were in session, and the Plaintiff needed to call Public Safety to get Ms. Jack to comply with his directives-an event which ultimately led to the rescission of Jack's discipline due to the way Tatum handled the issue; (2) the Plaintiff deliberately misinformed another employee, Ann Leon, about a training issue, resulting in Ms. Leon refusing to comply with the Plaintiff's directives and in her suspension for the day; (3) Tatum subsequently failed to direct Leon to sign her discipline letter despite being instructed to do so at a supervisor's meeting; and (4) the Plaintiff failed to address the failure of employee Rhona Foster to show up for an overtime shift and made excuses on her behalf when Fernandez directed the Plaintiff to raise the issue. (Id.) Tatum refused to sign this discipline letter. He avers that during a meeting with Fernandez that same day, Fernandez stated that Tatum “should not be working at the University of Hartford because I was already ‘collecting two paychecks' because I receive Social Security benefits.” (Tatum Aff. ¶ 6.) He further represents that while Fernandez reprimanded Tatum during this meeting for his inadequate performance as a custodial supervisor, he did not discuss any issues concerning the above-mentioned employees. (Id.)
With respect to these cited incidents Tatum testified that he never neglected to address staff members' infractions and that Fernandez never raised these issues with him before delivering the warning. (Tatum Dep. Tr. at 70:3-17.) Tatum denied getting into a shouting match with Ms. Jack and testified that he sent her home for refusing work and that Fernandez issued the warning because Tatum did not obtain Fernandez's permission before doing so when Fernandez was not on campus. (Id. at 71:23-25, 72:2-10.) Tatum further testified that Fernandez had directed him to train Ann Leon on a side-by-side machine but that she refused to be trained and Tatum therefore sent her home; Tatum was unaware of what “misinformation” the discipline letter referred to. (Id. at 73:1- 16.) When Ms. Leon refused to sign the discipline letter, Tatum testified that because she was a union employee he understood that the issue would need to be resolved through the union. (Id. at 74:10-15.) As for Rhona Foster, the Plaintiff testified that Ms. Foster was assigned overtime twice in the same weekend, which resulted in the weekend supervisor needing to find someone to cover one of the placements. (See Id. at 76:4-19.) Tatum refused to sign Foster's discipline form and testified that he was not Ms. Foster's supervisor for purposes of this incident. (See Id. at 76:20- 25, 77:1-2.)
Tatum submitted a...
To continue reading
Request your trial