CUC insists on dismissal of Stevens’ discrimination lawsuit

The Commonwealth Utilities Corp. insists that it has set forth proper grounds for the dismissal of a discrimination lawsuit filed by its former employee Carlton Stevens against the utility agency.

CUC counsel James S. Sirok said Stevens acknowledges that CUC’s motion to dismiss set proper grounds for dismissal but instead seeks to supplement his complaint.

At the outset, Sirok said, it is inappropriate to amend Stevens’ complaint with new facts in his opposition to the motion.

The lawyer said Stevens’ attempts to add documents as well as facts to the complaint are inappropriate.

Specifically, he said Stevens’ characterization of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s “notice of rights to sue” is not totally accurate.

Sirok said the full title of EEOC’s notice is “dismissal and notice of rights.”

He said this is because it was issued after EEOC determined that “based upon its investigation, the commission is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes…”

Sirok said if the complaint is not dismissed with prejudice, Stevens should be required to re-plead new facts.

Sirok said CUC has argued that as a matter of law, an 11-month lapse of time between Stevens’ contract ending and his application for a position fails to set forth a cognizable claim of retaliation regarding a withdrawal of a job vacancy announcement on Jan. 21, 2014.

He said Stevens does not respond directly to this argument but argues he gave fair notice of a claim.

“But giving fair notice is not enough if there is no causations as a matter of law because there was an 11-month break,” he added.

Stevens has asked the federal court to deny CUC’s motion to dismiss his discrimination lawsuit.

Stevens, through counsel Pamela Brown Blackburn, also requested the court to give him an opportunity to amend his complaint if the court finds defects in his first amended complaint.

Blackburn argued that Stevens’ complaint satisfies federal rules of procedure because it identifies claims for which relief can be granted.

In CUC’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, Sirok, asserted that lawsuit fails to properly allege subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because jurisdictional requirements have not been satisfied.

Sirok argued that to bring a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act claim, plaintiff is required to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a claim with the EEOC.

Stevens, an African-American, sued CUC and its four officials for allegedly not renewing his contract as direct responsible charge operator in CUC’s wastewater division, providing him a used and inoperable computer, and not providing him an office space, among other complaints.

Stevens is demanding unspecified compensatory damages, courts costs, and attorney’s fees.

Last month, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona dismissed Stevens’ claims against CUC, executive director Alan Fletcher, human resources director Frank Cepeda, wastewater manager Richard Wasser, and water and wastewater manager Paul Raczkowski, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Manglona dismissed with prejudice all of Stevens’ claims against Fletcher, Cepeda, Wasser, and Raczkowski, and dismissed without prejudice his complaint against CUC.

Dismissed with prejudice means Stevens can’t re-open the claims anymore. Dismissed without prejudice means the plaintiff can re-file the claims in the future.

Manglona gave Stevens 14 days from the date of the order to file a second amended complaint.

Stevens subsequently filed the second amended complaint.