Connecticut educator cannot win disparate treatment claim

In this disparate treatment case under Title VII, plaintiff argued that she could not be terminated for the same misconduct that her co-workers had also committed. The Court of Appeals affirms the grant of summary judgment, holding that, whatever her co-workers did wrong, they were not comparable to plaintiff. This dooms the disparate treatment claim, and the case is over.

The case is Laiscell v Board of Education, City of Hartford, a summary order issued on December 20.

The Board’s letter terminating Laiscell’s employment cited her “fraudulent and unprofessional conduct, including but not limited to” maintaining her ex- husband as an eligible dependent on her healthcare plan, costing the school district approximately $6,691; deleting a sentence from an email she forwarded to school superintendents, purportedly minimizing the significance of the ongoing dependent verification audit; and improperly storing certain budget-related files on her laptop. The letter further stated that “[s]uch conduct is particularly egregious given [her] stature and position . . . as the Executive Director of Financial Management.”

Plaintiff claims she was fired in retaliation for exercising her rights under Title VII. But the only way she can claim retaliation is if other coworkers did the same thing but were not fired. The question is whether the coworkers were similarly-situated, or comparable, to plaintiff under Title VII. They are not. 

The other workers who allegedly committed similar misconduct held lower-level positions than plaintiff or belonged to the union. Under case law from the Second Circuit (and presumably all the federal courts around the country), the employer may treat people differently depending on their job title and whether they are subjected to certain protections under the collective bargaining agreement.