You are here

Discrimination law

Attorney Alleges Racial Discrimination in City's Hiring of Outside Counsel

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:21

Here's the story I wrote for the Connecticut Law Tribune regarding a civil-rights attorney who alleges her own civil rights were violated by the city of Bridgeport in its hiring of outside counsel to represent city employees: 

osephine Miller is no stranger to litigation involving the city of Bridgeport and its school district.

In the highest profile case, which went to the state Supreme Court, the Danbury-based civil rights litigator represented parents who objected to the state's decision in 2011 to replace members of the elected school board with its own appointees.

Now Miller also has her own legal complaint pending. She is alleging in federal court that her civil rights were violated by the Bridgeport City Attorney, who is responsible for hiring outside counsel for school district employees entitled to city-paid legal representation. Specifically, Miller alleges that City Attorney Mark Anastasi paid a white attorney who formerly provided representation for a certain client, but that he has refused to pay Miller, who is an African American, for her work for the same client.

Miller's client, Andrew Cimmino, is a former Bridgeport elementary school teacher who was fired following sexual abuse allegations. Cimmino claims the allegations were fabricated by two school employees, and he has pursued civil claims against the employees and the school district. Miller defended Cimmino in a sexual harassment and constitutional-rights lawsuit the two school employees brought against the Bridgeport Board of Education, the city of Bridgeport and Cimmino.

Most recently, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant has ruled that Miller's claims of racial discrimination regarding payment for her representation of Cimmino could survive a motion to dismiss. But the judge seemed to express some skepticism about the complaint, writing Miller "faintly alleged" her conspiracy claim.

Miller's new counsel in the civil rights action, Richard C. Gordon, of Bloomfield, said in an interview that it is "not unusual" to see skeptical language from judges at an early stage of court proceedings. Discovery is not complete, Gordon pointed out, and he expressed confidence that they will fully prove the allegations of racial discrimination.

Miller's complaint does not provide any information about how much she thinks she is owed. The complaint does says she has not been paid since January 2010 and that Cimmino's prior attorney was not required to first incur legal fees and expenses before he received reimbursement.

Bridgeport Associate City Attorney Betsy Edwards said the allegations of racial discrimination in the city attorney's hiring of outside counsel "are demonstrably untrue." She said Miller has personal knowledge that the City Attorney's Office has African-American attorneys on its staff and also hires them for outside counsel.

The bottom line, according to the city, is that Anastasi is the only one authorized by the city charter to decide if city employees can hire outside counsel paid for by public tax dollars, and that authorization has not been granted to Miller in the Cimmino case. Edwards said Miller is trying to "force and coerce the City Attorney's Office" into hiring her to represent city employees entitled to legal representation, Edwards said.

But Gordon said the choice of outside counsel should not belong to the city attorney. "Any plaintiff in any matter has the right to select his or her attorney," said Gordon. "It would patently unfair to essentially require a plaintiff to use an attorney that he or she does not want."

In her ruling, Bryant noted that Miller often represents non-school employee clients who are suing the city of Bridgeport. For that reason, the judge said, the city may be reluctant to hire Miller to represent its own employees.

"While the record does not indicate the nature of the various representations, it is not inconceivable, for example, that an attorney who represented the city would be privy to information which would be adverse to its interests in a subsequent action against the city," Bryant said.

The federal judge rejected Miller's request to amend her complaint to add new claims of tortious interference with her contracts with her clients, conspiracy between two or more individuals to unlawfully deprive Miller of the right to make and enforce contracts due to her race, and other claims.

According to the judge's opinion, Miller also wanted to add allegations that she was told by an assistant city attorney that the city would not settle lawsuits brought by Miller because she has so many cases pending against Bridgeport. Miller also wanted to add a second allegation that another assistant city attorney told Cimmino, the fired principal, that "he should not employ Miller, that she was often reversed on [court] decisions entered in her favor, and that the client should employ a different attorney."

Miller also wanted to add a third allegation she has not been paid for representing another Bridgeport city employee.

Bryant ruled that those allegations don't share a nucleus of common fact with what Miller has already alleged regarding Cimmino, the judge said.

"While Miller alleges that various Bridgeport city attorneys were involved in the alleged conspiracy, she has utterly failed to connect either the attorneys or the incidents she alleges to be involved," Bryant said. "Moreover, although she alleges that this conspiracy's goal was to deprive her of her right to make or enforce contracts based on her race, Miller has failed to allege any inference of discrimination in the new incidents she seeks to add to the action."

Gordon said he will file a new complaint on Miller's behalf with the allegations that the judge did not permit to be added to the Cimmino case as well as the conspiracy claim regarding the Cimmino situation.



Read more: http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202649823476/Attorney-Claims-City-Refuse...

Wedding Photography Case at the Crossroads of LGBT Rights and Free Speech

Eugene Volokh and Ilya Shapiro, writing in the Wall Street Journal, say that they support same-sex marriage but that a discrimination case against New Mexico photography business owners who don't want to photograph same-sex wedding and commitment ceremonies would make bad law. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission, in a decision upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court, found that Elane Photography is subject to state's antidiscrimination law and must accommodate the public. "Creators of expression have a First Amendment right to choose which expression they want to create," they argue.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to take up the case later this month.

Governor Vetoes Bill that Would Have Allowed Religious-Based Discrimination Against Gays and Lesbians

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed legislation that would have allowed conservative religious business owners to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples regarding their marriages, such as wedding photography, wedding cakes and flowers, The Washington Post reports. In deciding to veto the legislation, Brewer said, "'I have not heard of one example in Arizona where business owners' religious liberty has been violated. The bill is broadly worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences,'" The Post reports.

The legislation was created "in response to a ruling by the New Mexico state Supreme Court against a wedding photographer who declined to work for a couple's same-sex wedding," The Post further reports.

Kansas Bill to Protect Religious-Based LGBT Discrimination Declared Dead

The chairman of the Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee has declared dead a bill that would have shielded business owners from being forced to service same-sex weddings if that would be against their religious beliefs, the Associated Press reports. The bill, which was passed by the House, would have barred governmental sanctions and anti-discrimination lawsuits in those circumstances.

As I noted in my prior post on this legislation, LGBT-rights advocates criticized the bill for allowing governmental workers to cite their religious beliefs in refusing to provide governmental services to gay couples.

Kansas Panel Advances Legislation to Allow Religious-Based LGBT Discrimination

As Kansas "braces for the federal courts striking down Kansas' ban on gay marriage," a House legislative committee has passed a bill that would shield business owners from being forced to service same-sex weddings if that would be against their religious beliefs, the Associated Press reports. The bill would bar governmental sanctions and anti-discrimination lawsuits in those circumstances.

LGBT-rights advocates criticized the bill for allowing governmental workers to cite their religious beliefs in refusing to provide governmental services to gay couples, the AP further reports. The bill requires "agencies to seek a work-around - if it isn't an 'undue hardship,'" according to the AP.

Kagan Fetes Bader Ginsburg

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was celebrated by fellow Justice Elena Kagan and the New York City Bar Association this week, the Associated Press reports. Ginsburg "'has done as much as anyone in the last 40 years" to make the country more just and equal, Kagan remarked, the AP reports. Prior joining the bench, Ginsburg was a leading litigator in gender discrimination law.

New York Found Liable For Discriminating Against People with Disabilities During Hurricane Sandy

A federal judge has ruled that people with disabilities were discriminated against by New York City during Superstorm Sandy. The New York Law Journal reports that "Southern District Judge Jesse Furman ruled Thursday that the city violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the New York City Human Rights Law in how it plans to respond to severe storms and power outages." While the judge said the discrimination against people with disabilities in getting them evacuated and housed during the storm and its aftermath was not intentional, "more needs to be done to meet the needs of the disabled in the future, especially in the evacuation of people stuck in high-rise buildings after a storm," the NYLJ further reports.

Prognosis for LGBT Anti-Discrimination Bill Good in U.S. Senate

The prognosis is good for the bipartisan passage in the U.S. Senate of legislation that would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the Associated Press reports. However, it is unclear if the legislation would even be taken up in the House of Representatives.

The bill has bipartisan support. "In a sign of the times, the anti-bias legislation has traditional proponents such as the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay and lesbian advocacy group, plus the backing of a relatively new group, the American Unity Fund. That organization has the financial support of big-name Republican donors — hedge fund billionaires Paul Singer, Cliff Asness, Dan Loeb and Seth Klarman — and former GOP lawmakers Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Tom Reynolds of New York," the AP also reports.

 

Missouri Supreme Court Rejects Survivor Benefits for Trooper's Same-Sex Partner

After Missouri State Trooper Dennis Engelhard was killed while investigating a traffic accident, his same-sex partner sought survivor benefits. Missouri pays benefits to the surivors of highway patrol officers killed in the line of duty, the Associated Press reported. The Missouri Supreme Court has ruled that because the couple were not married that no benefits are owed, according to the AP.

While Missouri prohibits same-sex marriage in its state constitution and a state law, “the result cannot be any different here simply because [Kelly] Glossip and the patrolman were of the same sex. The statute discriminates solely on the basis of marital status, not sexual orientation,” the majority of five justices said according to AP. 

The two-member dissent, however, said the statute should be struck down because it "specifically discriminate against gay men and lesbians by categorically denying them crucial state benefits when their partner dies in the line of duty," according to AP.
 

U.S. Senate Will Take Up LGBT Employment Discrimination Bill

Employees who are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgendered do not have any federal protection from being discriminated against by their employers. The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate is going to take up a bill that would bar employment discrimination against Americans who are LGBT. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act "would prohibit discrimination by nonreligious entities against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity," The Washington Post reported. The bill, however, has been introduced several times in past legislative sessions and not gotten anywhere.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Discrimination law