WILLIAM L. HADDEN, JR., JTR.
The plaintiff, Ori Kellman, has filed a second amended two-count complaint against the defendants Enterprise Plumbing Heating, Inc., (Enterprise) and Salvatore L. DeFelice. The plaintiff claims that he was discharged from his employment by Enterprise in violation of Section 46a-60(a)(1) of the Connecticut General Statutes.
The complaint alleges in the first count, in substance, that the plaintiff received a release of jurisdiction from the commission on human rights and opportunities (commission) after which he filed this complaint. He alleges that he was employed by Enterprise from October 31, 2006 through April 2, 2007, as a licensed plumber on the Cross Campus Library project at Yale University, and that he was terminated on April 2, 2007 at the end of the working day. He claims that he had received no complaints regarding his work, that two days before he was terminated Enterprise hired Louie DeFelice, a similarly qualified white male and nephew of Salvatore DeFelice, who is the owner of the defendant. The complaint alleges that race is a protected class under Connecticut General Statutes Section 46a-60(a)(1), and that Enterprise subjected the plaintiff to racial discrimination, causing him to suffer damages, lost wages, and severe humiliation, embarrassment, and emotional distress when they violated the statute by terminating him and replacing him with a similarly qualified white male to engage in the same work. The second count realleges all of the claims made in the first count and claims that the plaintiff was caused to suffer extreme emotional distress by the racial discrimination, that Salvatore DeFelice knew or should have known of this conduct, and that the defendants acted negligently causing harm and damage to the plaintiff. Although it is not alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff is an African-American male.
The defendants admit the allegations concerning the plaintiff's hiring, the hiring of Louie DeFelice who replaced the plaintiff, and the termination of the plaintiff. The defendants deny that they engaged in an act of racial discrimination in violation of Section 46a-60(a)(1) in CT Page 3676 terminating the plaintiff, that Louie DeFelice was a similarly qualified white male who was the nephew of Salvatore DeFelice, and that the plaintiff has suffered losses or damages as the result of their conduct.
This case was tried before the court in a bench trial on September 15, 2009. The plaintiff offered his own testimony and that of Salvatore DeFelice. The defendants offered testimony from Salvatore DeFelice, the executive director of City of New Haven Equal Employment Opportunities Commission Nicole Jefferson, the business manager of the union local Hubert Barnes, the assistant business manager of the union local Gerry Fucci, the project manager of the Cross library project Doan Hammond, and Louie DeFelice.
In a case in which the plaintiff alleges disparate treatment, such as race, the liability of the employer will depend on whether the race of the plaintiff actually played a role in the decision making process of the employer and had a determinative influence on the outcome. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133.
Cases which involve a claim of racial discrimination with respect to an employment decision require an analysis of the burden of proof.
" McDonnell Douglas and subsequent decisions have established an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in . . . discriminatory-treatment cases . . . First, the [complainant] must establish a prima facie case of discrimination." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 142. In order to establish a prima facie case, the complainant must prove that: (1) he is in the protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
Once the complainant establishes a prima facie case, the employer then must produce legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its adverse employment action. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., supra, 530 U.S. 142. "This burden is one of production, not persuasion; it can involve no credibility assessment." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
Once the employer produces legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its adverse employment action, the complainant then must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employer intentionally discriminated against him. Id., 143. "Although intermediate evidentiary burdens shift back and forth under this framework, [t]he ultimate burden CT Page 3677 of persuading the trier of fact that the [employer] intentionally discriminated against the [complainant] remains at all times with the [complainant] . . . [I]n attempting to satisfy this burden, the [complainant] — once the employer produces sufficient evidence to support a nondiscriminatory explanation for is decision — must be afforded the opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the [employer] were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
The court finds that the plaintiff is an African-American, he was qualified as a licensed plumber and was working in that capacity from October 31, 2006 through April 2, 2007 in the employ of Enterprise on the Cross Campus Library Project for Yale University, the defendant brought a white male plumber on to the library project and two days later the plaintiff was terminated, the white male plumber was retained, and there were no complaints regarding the plaintiff's work before the termination. The court finds that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of employment discrimination.
The defendants have satisfied their burden of producing legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for retaining Louie DeFelice instead of the plaintiff and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants intentionally discriminated against him.
The evidence disclosed that these two men are not similarly qualified plumbers. Louie DeFelice had been employed by Enterprise for eleven years as against the plaintiff's employment of five or six months. Louie DeFelice had been a licensed journeyman plumber for seven years as against two years by the plaintiff. Louie DeFelice had been employed by Enterprise as a foreman and sub-foreman and the plaintiff had not been so employed. Louie DeFelice had the benefit of a company truck, a company cell phone, a company gas card, and paid holidays. The plaintiff had none of these benefits and the two men were not similarly qualified.
Louie DeFelice had worked on the Cross Campus Library Project as general foreman at the beginning of construction until Dennis Yacono finished up another job for Enterprise and was able to come to the library project as the general foreman. Louie DeFelice then was sent to another Enterprise job, the Sculpture Building, and when that job was finished he was sent back to the Cross Campus Library project. Enterprise considered Louie DeFelice as being one of their core people, and it is sound business practice to keep core people working and if additional help is needed then employees such as the plaintiff are hired for CT Page 3678 whatever time they are needed and then laid off when they are no longer needed. The collective bargaining agreement between the union and the City of New Haven which Yale insists be adhered to gives the employer the sole discretion in the composition of the workforce and in the sequence of layoffs.
The court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants intentionally discriminated against him or that the conduct of the defendants caused him to suffer extreme emotional disturbance.
Judgment may enter for the defendants.
CT Page 3679