A federal judge from the District of Connecticut has denied a school district’s motion to dismiss in a case in which it was sued by a male basketball coach, who was fired, and subsequently claimed that his termination was based on his gender.
In so ruling, the court found that plaintiff Richard Palmer had alleged facts alleging discrimination that had “crossed the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Palmer, who is African American, was hired by the Town of Darien and the Darien Board of Education in November 2006 to be the head coach of the girls basketball team at Darien High. John Keleher, the Athletic Director, gave plaintiff a “glowing” review at the end of his first year on the job.
The next year, however, the plaintiff alleged that Megan Sapeta, the JV girls basketball coach, started to make discriminatory comments about him. Sapeta told another coach, Coach Dunmore, that the plaintiff spoke to a certain male coach only because the coach “has a penis.” When Dunmore, a black female, told her that the plaintiff also spoke with her, Sapeta said “that was different.” The plaintiff got wind of Sapeta’s comments and complained to Keleher, but the AD did nothing.
Palmer also learned that Sapeta was encouraging girls on his team to complain about him. He asked Keleher what “Sapeta’s problem was.” Keleher responded that she “had a problem reporting to a black man.” Keleher did nothing to resolve the friction. “Sapeta’s behavior disrupted the girls basketball team and interfered with the plaintiff’s attempt to coach the team,” wrote the court.
For a brief time, Sapeta was suspended from coaching at the plaintiff’s request. Palmer requested the suspension after “she chastised other coaches without justification and disrupted the team,” wrote the court. “Sapeta was reinstated after seven days. The plaintiff was not consulted about the reinstatement.”
At the time Sapeta was reinstated, the plaintiff’s complaints about discrimination on the basis of gender and race still had not been addressed, according to the court. In fact, the plaintiff was informed that Sapeta’s reinstatement occurred because parents were “more comfortable” with her, a white female, serving as the coach.
Three days after Sapeta’s reinstatement, Keleher informed Palmer that his employment had been terminated. No reason was given for the termination. The plaintiff sued, claiming employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000, et seq., and Connecticut’s Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-51, et seq. The defendant responded with a motion to dismiss, pursuant the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)6.
The court noted that in an employment discrimination context, a “complaint need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 at 569 (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 515, 122 S. Ct. 992, 152 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2002)).
“No ‘specific evidence or extra facts’ need to be pleaded ‘beyond what is needed to make the claim plausible.’ Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 120-21 (2d Cir. 2010). Here, the plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to push his claim ‘across the line from conceivable to plausible.’ Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929.
“Accepting the plaintiff’s allegations as true, he heard about Sapeta’s gender-related comments and complained about them to his supervisor. Nothing was done. He was told by his supervisor that Sapeta had a problem with him in part because of his gender. Again nothing was done. Sapeta kept her job because parents were ‘more comfortable’ with her. The plaintiff, who had complained about Sapeta’s discriminatory comments and behavior, was fired. No reason was given for the firing. Viewed collectively, and most favorably to the plaintiff, these allegations support a ‘reasonable inference’ that the defendants are liable for gender discrimination. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.”
Richard Levonte Palmer v. Town Of Darien and Darien Board Of Education; D.Conn.; CASE NO. 3:09-CV-1508(RNC), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103559; 9/30/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Christine A. Caulfield, Kathryn Emmett, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Emmett & Glander, Stamford, CT. (for defendants) Catherine S. Nietzel, Charles A. Deluca, Clarisse Nicole Thomas, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Ryan Ryan Deluca LLP, Stamford, CT; John Wayne Fox, LEAD ATTORNEY, Curtis, Brinckerhoff & Barrett, Stamford, CT.
