A Connecticut Superior Court judge has refused to dismiss a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a New London firefighter who claims he was passed over for promotion to lieutenant in favor of a white firefighter who received additional points for seniority.

Nicholas Brown, an African American firefighter who joined the New London Fire Department in 2015, filed suit against the city alleging violations of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. Brown claims the department manipulated promotional examinations and selection procedures to favor white firefighters and retaliated against him after he complained about discrimination.

The dispute began in September 2021, when New London announced an opening for a fire inspector. Three firefighters took the written examination, but according to Brown, he was the only candidate who met the minimum service requirements. Brown passed the written examination, while a white firefighter whom he believed the department preferred did not.

Brown alleges that Fire Chief Thomas Curcio encouraged him to challenge the written examination, which Brown believed was an attempt to justify administering a new examination that would give the preferred candidate another opportunity to qualify. The oral examination was subsequently canceled after the union filed a grievance on behalf of the unsuccessful candidate, citing excessive noise during testing.

After discovering that the other candidates lacked the requisite six years on the department, Brown sought to file his own grievance over the cancellation, but the grievance committee declined to process it. The court explained what happened next:

• On February 2, 2022, the plaintiff received a voicemail indicating that a retest was scheduled for the fire inspector position on February 14, 2022.
• Three days later, the plaintiff sent an e-mail to the union stating that he felt he was being discriminated against.
• On February 11, 2022, the plaintiff received a voicemail message indicating that the February 14, 2022 retest was being cancelled due to his e-mail.
• The plaintiff then took the oral examination for the fire inspector job on February 24, 2022.
• On March 1, 2022, the plaintiff was informed he passed both fire inspector examinations, and as the only passing candidate, he was offered the position.
• At that time, the fire chief also stated that if the plaintiff finished in the top five of the fire lieutenant examination, that the fire chief would select the plaintiff for the position.
• The plaintiff accepted the fire inspector role.
• On March 10, 2022, the plaintiff sat for the fire lieutenant written examination. The plaintiff was the only African American who took the examination.
• The plaintiff was informed he passed the written examination on March 11, 2022.
• Thereafter, on March 29, 2022, the plaintiff participated in the fire lieutenant oral examination.
• The plaintiff was the first candidate, and he was asked twelve “hard” questions.
• After completing the initial round of questioning, the plaintiff was brought back out and asked an additional ten “basic” questions.
• The plaintiff alleges that “these ten questions were asked to prevent movement of the order the participants fell based on the written exam grades because the questions were very basic.”
• On April 6, 2022, the plaintiff was informed that he received a total overall score of 90.16 on both fire lieutenant examinations.
• Subsequently, on May 9, 2022, the plaintiff sent an e-mail to the defendant’s chief operating officer Steve Fields indicating that he felt discriminated against during both examinations.
• The plaintiff attended a meeting with Fields on July 15, 2022, wherein Fields “stopped the plaintiff when he was trying to explain the basis for his claims” against the defendant and the union and told him that “if these things were happening to him it was probably his fault.”
•  On October 19, 2022, the plaintiff was informed that there as a tie for third place with respect to the fire lieutenant position, but the other candidate, a white male, was being selected because “he had been there longer.”
• In reality, however, this individual actually had a lower examination score, and he had already received extra points due to seniority in order to raise his score high enough to tie the plaintiff.
• The plaintiff alleges that he has suffered injuries in being passed over for the fire lieutenant position because that job has a higher pay rate and more opportunities for overtime than the fire inspector role.
• As a result of all of this alleged conduct, the plaintiff alleges two causes of action in his complaint.
• Count one sounds in race discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. In count two, the plaintiff brings a retaliation claim under CFEPA.

The city sought summary judgment, arguing that Brown had not suffered an adverse employment action, that the decision to promote Rozek was based on legitimate, race-neutral considerations, and that Brown lacked sufficient evidence to establish discrimination or retaliation.

Superior Court Judge Chadwick rejected those arguments.

On the discrimination claim, the court concluded that Brown had clearly suffered an adverse employment action when he was denied promotion to lieutenant. The court also questioned the city’s explanation for selecting Rozek.

During oral argument, the city’s attorney acknowledged that Rozek had already received additional examination points for seniority and would not have tied Brown without those points. The court also noted that Fire Chief Curcio was unable to explain during his deposition the difference between experience and seniority.

Judge Chadwick wrote:

• Given this lack of clarity in the methodology used by the defendant in choosing Rozek over the plaintiff, it would be reasonable for a jury to conclude that the defendant has failed to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for failing to promote the plaintiff, or at the very least when the burden shifts back to the plaintiff, that the explanation was pretextual.

The court also rejected the city’s attempt to dismiss Brown’s retaliation claim.

The city argued that Brown had not engaged in legally protected activity before filing a formal discrimination complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in August 2023, well after the promotional decision.

However, the court found that Brown’s earlier communications with city officials could constitute protected activity under Connecticut law. The court explained that employees are protected not only when they file formal discrimination complaints, but also when they make informal complaints to management.

The court concluded that Brown’s May 2022 email, combined with his July meeting with Fields, could qualify as protected activity. The timing of those complaints, followed by the October decision to promote another firefighter, could support a finding of retaliation.

Judge Chadwick wrote:

• This relatively tight timeline, coupled with other evidence, could support the conclusion that the defendant retaliated against the plaintiff due to his complaints of discrimination.

The court also rejected the city’s attempt to obtain partial summary judgment based on the 300-day statute of limitations applicable to discrimination complaints filed with the state. Although some of the alleged conduct occurred outside that period, the October 2022 promotional decision was timely, and the court declined to dismiss individual factual allegations that formed part of Brown’s discrimination and retaliation claims.

The court denied the city’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, allowing both claims to proceed.