Page 35 - CLT122120

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 21, 2020 ¦ 35

documented. Also, Mmolawa claimed liquidated The court granted in part and denied in part a
damages for alleged willful violations of the Fair motion to dismiss a wrongful termination law-
Labor Standards Act. Diligent moved for par- suit. Tina Baker was a “black/African-American”
tial summary judgment as to whether Mmolawa employee at CT Transit, a state-owned bus ser-
was owed overtime pay and as to whether Dili- vice. CT suspended Baker for improper use of a
gent could establish good faith grounds for any cell phone and then terminated her for a second
violations of Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Act. similar offense. Baker sued CT, alleging viola-
The court granted in part and denied in part the tions of federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
motion. First, regarding overtime wages under Baker alleged disparate treatment, complaining
the FLSA and the CMWA, Mmolawa offered no that other employees, who were not black/African-
evidence upon which a fact-finder could reason- American employees had committed similar viola-
ably conclude that Diligent had actual or con- tions but had received no or lesser discipline from
structive knowledge that his sleep time and meal CT. Initially, Baker filed a grievance. She then filed
breaks were interrupted by his client’s calls for complaints with Connecticut’s Commission on
service. Mmolawa claimed that logs he prepared Human Rights and Opportunities and the Equal
were inaccurate, but, as he admitted, he could not Employment Opportunity Commission. On the
offer any documentary evidence to support his form she filled out, she checked boxes indicating
claim that he was misinformed or insufficiently her belief that her “race-African American” and
trained on how to complete the logs and accu- “national origin-American” were factors in her
rately record his time. His overtime claims were termination. She did not check a box indicating
based solely on conclusory and contradictory “color” was a factor. Baker alleged that another
testimony. However, the court denied Diligent’s employee, “Danny Isabella,” who was not Black or
motion on issues of whether Diligent knew or African-American, had repeatedly committed sim-
had reckless disregard for whether its conduct ilar offenses and was not fired. Another employ-
violated the pertinent provisions of the FLSA. ee, “Mary,” who was Haitian was disciplined for
Diligent claimed that any errors it made in calcu- similar offenses but not fired. The EEOC/CHRO
lating the amount of the food and lodging credit claims were resolved against her, and she was al-
under the FLSA were the result of negligence and lowed to sue. Baker sued. The court dismissed
not willful violations. Although there might have with leave to amend. Baker filed an amended com-
been some basis for a claim that Diligent acted plaint. The court granted a motion to dismiss as to
in accordance with advice from a Connecticut color discrimination claims but allowed race dis-
Department of Labor director, Diligent failed crimination claims to proceed. The court agreed
to show how it could have reasonably believed with CT that Baker’s Title VII and CFEPA claims
the amount for food and costs it deducted from with respect to color discrimination had to be dis-
Mmolawa’s wages comported with the statute. missed because her EEOC/CHRO claim failed to
Diligent offered no explanation for deducting allege color discrimination and, therefore, she had
four times the amount permitted under the law. not exhausted her administrative remedies. Baker’s
Compared to the issue of sleep time and meal failure to check the “color” box, and her factual al-
breaks, Diligent did not conclusively show that legations regarding her Haitian co-worker, would
its noncompliance as to both the record keeping not have put the investigating agency on notice
and the amount of food and lodging credits it of a color discrimination claim. The court rec-
charged against Mmolawa’s wages was not will- ognized that some other courts have found color
ful or done with reckless disregard. discrimination claims to be reasonably related to

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION • CIVIL RIGHTS race discrimination claims because they are of the
same type and character such that the defendant
cannot claim to be unfairly surprised by the allega-
Terminated Employee Could Not tion of color discrimination. But this case involved
an administrative complaint that included factual
Maintain Color Discrimination Lawsuit allegations expressly contradicting a particular
For Failure to Exhaust Remedies species of discrimination claim that was later as-
serted in court. The court also found, however,
CASE: Baker v. CT Transit that CT Transit’s disparate treatment of Baker as
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut compared to Danny Isabella was enough to raise
DOC. NO.: 3:18-cv-01534 a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation,
COURT OPINION BY: Shea
DATE: December 04, 2020 • PAGES: 13 which was all that is required at the pleading stage.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune