CUC seeks dismissal of Stevens’ amended discrimination suit

The Commonwealth Utilities Corp. has asked the federal court to dismiss the second amended discrimination lawsuit filed by former CUC employee Carlton Stevens against the agency.

CUC counsel James S. Sirok asserted that Stevens’ complaint 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 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The lawyer said when an EEOC notice of right-to-sue letter is issued after claim is dismissed, this triggers a 90-day statute of limitations period to bring an action in the federal district court.

Sirok said because Stevens has failed to properly plead that he brought this action within the statutory limitation period, he has failed to properly plead jurisdiction under Title VII.

The lawyer said Stevens fails to set forth a cognizable claim of racial discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981.

Section 1981 similarly prohibits discrimination, but based on the “benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions” of employment.

Sirok said Stevens fails to set forth a cognizable claims of retaliation regarding a withdrawal of a job vacancy announcement on Jan. 21, 2014, 11 months after his contract expired.

The lawyer said to make out a prima face case of retaliation, a plaintiff must establish that after he undertook a protected activity under Title VII, his employer subjected him to an adverse employment action, and there is a causal link between those two events.

Sirok said Stevens was informed on Feb. 13, 2013, that his position was being advertised and he could apply and go through the hiring process like any other applicants.

Sirok said Stevens did not actually apply for the position until Jan. 21, 2014, when he applied for the position but was informed it was withdrawn.

“This was approximately 11 months after his contract had expired, thus breaking any inference of causation,” he said.

“Without any further facts to show that Stevens engaged in a protected activity or that his employer subjected him to an adverse employment action, and without a causal link to show a retaliatory motive, the third count should be dismissed,” the lawyer added.

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, through counsel Pamela Brown Blackburn, asked the court to hold the defendants liable to pay him in unspecified amount compensatory damages, courts costs, and attorney’s fees.

Last month, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona dismissed Stevens’ discrimination lawsuit.

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 granted Stevens 14 days from the date of the order in which to file a second amended complaint.

Stevens subsequently filed the second amended complaint.