Valenzisi v. Stamford Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 05 June 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:10–CV–958 (JCH).
• Citation: 948 F.Supp.2d 227
• Parties: Frank VALENZISI, Plaintiff, v. STAMFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

948 F.Supp.2d 227

Frank VALENZISI, Plaintiff,

v.STAMFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:10–CV–958 (JCH).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

June 5, 2013.

John R. Williams, Rose Longo–McLean, John R. Williams & Associates, LLC, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiff.

Barbara L. Coughlan, Michael Steven Toma, City of Stamford Corporation Counsel's Office, Stamford, CT, for Defendant.

RULING RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 64)

JANET C. HALL, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Frank Valenzisi (“Valenzisi”) brings this action against defendant Stamford Board of Education (“Stamford”) for damages resulting from Valenzisi's termination of employment from Stamford High School, where he served as a tenured math teacher. Valenzisi alleges that his termination was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“the ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“Section 504”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code. He also brings a section 1983 and section 1988 claim for violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

At the time of his termination—October 23, 2007—Valenzisi was a tenured teacher under the Teacher Tenure Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 10–151, and had been employed by Stamford as a high school math teacher for many years. Pl. Local Rule (“L.R.”) 56(a)(2) St. ¶¶ 3–4. Valenzisi is a “Born Again, Bible–Believing,” Christian who believes God alone counsels him. Id. at ¶ 37.

Prior to his termination, by letter dated August 4, 2006, Valenzisi was advised to contact Deputy Superintendent Carlton Moody (“Moody”) to arrange for a “fit for duty” medical evaluation before he could resume his duties at Stamford High School. Id. at ¶ 5. Valenzisi had attended a meeting with Moody on June 27, 2006, to respond to claims of sexual harassment and threatening behavior. Def. Mem. in Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. B. These incidents included alleged sexually aggressive behavior toward a female colleague, hostile behavior toward a custodian, and difficulty focusing and recognizing people with whom he worked. Id., Ex. G, 1. In the letter, Moody detailed how Valenzisi acted bizarrely during the meeting, most notably by reenacting how his female colleague ate a banana in front of him. Id., Ex. B. Based on Valenzisi's behavior in the meeting as well as the reported incidents, Moody directed Valenzisi to obtain the medical evaluation from a medical professional selected by the Board of Education. Id.

On or about August 15, 2006, Valenzisi filed a grievance (a level two request) protesting the directive that he be evaluated to determine his fitness for duty. Pl. L.R. 56(a)(2) St. ¶ 6. Valenzisi did not state in the grievance letter that he could not comply with Stamford's request that he obtain a fitness for duty evaluation because of a religious conflict. Id. However, according to Valenzisi, he addressed this issue with Deputy Superintendent Moody on an August 29, 2006, telephone call. Id. According to Valenzisi, he “pleaded” with Moody “for BOE medical agents to employ industry standard objective testing to determine the fitness IME [independent medical evaluation] by agency.” ¹ Pl. Mem. in Opp. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 4, ¶ 6.3.

Valenzisi's grievance was denied by letter dated October 18, 2006. Pl. L.R. 56(a)(2) St. ¶ 7. On or about October 20, 2006, Valenzisi appealed the denial by filing a level three grievance presentation. Id. at ¶ 8. He did not include any information regarding his inability to comply with Stamford's request that he obtain a fitness for duty evaluation because of religious conflict. Id.

By letter dated December 22, 2006, Moody directed Valenzisi to obtain an evaluation for fitness for duty and to schedule an appointment for an evaluation by January 16, 2007. Id. at ¶ 10. Moody informed Valenzisi that his refusal to obtain an evaluation would “constitute insubordination and may result in disciplinary action including dismissal.” Id.

Valenzisi went to the office of Dr. Morris Bell (“Dr. Bell”) for an evaluation on January 12, 2007. Id. at ¶ 11. According to Stamford, Valenzisi was not required to participate in secular counseling before being seen by Dr. Bell for the fitness for duty evaluation. Def. L.R. 56(a)(1) St. ¶ 12. According to Valenzisi, he was referred to the Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”) to schedule his evaluation with Dr. Bell. Because EAP offers mental health and substance abuse therapy, not medical evaluations, he was required to seek secular counseling. Pl. L.R. 56(a)(2) St. ¶ 12. However, Valenzisi agrees that he was sent to Dr. Bell for an evaluation, not counseling. Id. at ¶ 13. Dr. Bell prepared a report of his evaluation, dated January 17, 2007. Id. at ¶ 14. Dr. Bell states in the report that Valenzisi walked out before the evaluation was complete. Id. Dr. Bell notes that Valenzisi came back a few moments later and Dr. Bell informed him that they could meet again to complete the evaluation. The two agreed to meet the next Monday, but Valenzisi canceled the appointment. Bell stated in the report that he was not able to speak further with Valenzisi.²Id. In the report, Dr. Bell also recommended that Valenzisi have a comprehensive neurological assessment. Id. at p. 4, ¶ 2.

After receiving Dr. Bell's report, Moody sent Valenzisi a letter, dated February 16, 2007, requesting that he attend a pre-termination hearing. Id. at ¶ 15. The pretermination hearing was being held as a result of Valenzisi's refusal to submit to testing as requested. Id. Also in February, Valenzisi asked his Union to submit his grievance, which had previously been denied, to arbitration. Id. at ¶ 16. In his request dated February 5, 2007, Valenzisi summarized what had transpired since his suspension in June 2006; however, he never mentioned that he had a religious conflict that required an accommodation. Id. After the pre-termination hearing, Moody sent a letter, dated March 15, 2007, to Valenzisi. The letter notified him that Stamford was considering whether to terminate his contract of employment and informed Valenzisi that he could request a statement of reasons and a hearing concerning the action. Id. at ¶ 17. Attorney Thomas Mooney sent a letter, dated March 28, 2007, to Valenzisi's Connecticut Education Association ³ (“CEA”) attorney Christopher Hankins, which stated the reasons why Valenzisi's contract of employment was under consideration for termination. Id. at ¶ 18.

The termination hearings were held before an Impartial Hearing Panel. Id. at ¶ 19. Valenzisi participated in the hearings and was represented by a CEA attorney. Id. at ¶ 20. At no time during those hearings was anything said about a religious conflict or a request for an accommodation for what Valenzisi believed was a religious conflict.⁴Id. at ¶ 21. Valenzisi did not ask for an accommodation related to his religious beliefs nor did he inform the panel that he was opposed to secular counseling.⁵Id. at ¶ 22. At the conclusion of the termination hearings, Valenzisi's attorney prepared proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Valenzisi's behalf. Id. at ¶ 24. Those proposed findings and conclusions never mentioned a religious conflict or request for an accommodation. Id. On October 3–4, 2007, the panel signed their “Findings and Recommendation,” in which they recommended that Valenzisi's employment be terminated. Id. at ¶ 19. Valenzisi agrees that the Findings and Recommendation were substantively supported by Dr. Bell's report. Id. at ¶ 27.

On October 23, 2007, Stamford met to consider the panel's Findings and Recommendation. Id. at ¶ 25. At that time, Valenzisi presented Stamford with a report from a doctor he had seen on his own. Id. Neither Valenzisi's CEA attorney nor Stamford moved to re-open the termination hearings to consider the new report. Id. According to Valenzisi, the report concluded that he was not mentally ill. Id. at p. 5, ¶ 10.

At the meeting, Stamford accepted the Findings and Recommendation of the panel and terminated Valenzisi's contract of employment. Id. at ¶ 26. Valenzisi did not appeal Stamford's decision to terminate his employment and retired within days of being terminated. Id. at ¶¶ 28, 47.

Valenzisi claims that the CEA refused to represent him on appeal, which is why he forfeited the right to timely file a Superior Court Complaint of Appeal. Id. at ¶ 29. Valenzisi believes that the CEA failed to follow his instructions, negligently omitted evidence, miscommunicated with him, caused his absence at the first of three hearings regarding his termination, and failed to correct misrepresentations before the panel considering his termination. Id. at ¶¶ 30–31. Valenzisi claims he raised his alleged religious conflict with his CEA representative, but admits that he has no evidence that these concerns were presented to the defendant. Id. at ¶ 32.

Valenzisi claims that “he filed an August 13, 2008 letter addressed to a Ms. Giantonio with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Id. at ¶ 38. This was his first filing with the EEOC. Id. That letter lists Valenzisi as the “Claimant,” and Stamford as the “entity against whom the charge is set forth.” Id. at ¶ 39. The only facts set forth in this letter were that Valenzisi's “employment contract was terminated on October 22, 2007, due to religious discriminatory practices, following 35 years of distinguished Service.” Id. The letter is not signed by the plaintiff under oath. Id. Valenzisi has no receipt to show if and when the August 13, 2008 letter was received by the EEOC. Id. at ¶ 41.

On January 9, 2009, Valenzisi signed a statement under oath regarding his alleged religious discrimination claim. Id. at ¶ 42. There are no...