Hopkins v. Bridgeport Bd of Ed et al

Filing 102

ORDER Regarding the Parties' Joint Trial Memorandum. Please See Attached Order. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10/13/2011. (Fernandez, Melissa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LYMAN S. HOPKINS,
PLAINTIFF,

v.
BRIDGEPORT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
DEFENDANT.

:
:
: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09cv1143(VLB)
:
: OCTOBER 13, 2011
:
:
:

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ JOINT TRIAL MEMORANDUM
A. Proposed description of the case and parties
The Court intends to give the voir dire panel the following description of
the case and parties. This is a breach of contract and retaliation case brought
under 42 U.S.C. §2000e by Plaintiff, Lyman Hopkins who was formerly employed
by Defendant Bridgeport Board of Education from 2005-2006. Following the nonrenewal of Plaintiff’s teaching contract, Mr. Hopkins and the Board reached a
settlement agreement on March 3, 2008. Mr. Hopkins contends that the Board
breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement and retaliated against him for
filing a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, by
failing to respond to his requests for the email address of the person designated
to provide an employment reference for him in the form and as specified in the
settlement agreement so that he could file employment applications electronically
as required by prospective employers. Defendant claims that the Settlement
Agreement was not breached nor did it retaliate against the Plaintiff, asserting
that it complied with its obligations under the settlement agreement by giving him
a reference letter which the Plaintiff failed to provide to prospective employers.

1 

B. Objections raised by the Defendants in the Joint Trial Memorandum
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of John Ramos on
the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiff has indicated that
Mr. Ramos will testify about the communications Plaintiff sent to Ramos
requesting employment references. The objection is overruled as this testimony
is relevant to demonstrate Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain performance of the terms
of the Settlement Agreement.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of Lisa Egan, esquire
on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402 and attorney client
privilege. Plaintiff has indicated that Attorney Egan will testify about the March
2008 Settlement Agreement. The objection is overruled as the Settlement
Agreement is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. If Attorney Egan represented Plaintiff
then Plaintiff may waive the attorney-client privilege. However if Attorney Egan
represented Defendants, Attorney Egan may still testify regarding information not
subject to a proper claim of attorney-client or attorney work product privilege.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of Melanie Howlett,
esquire who is an attorney with the office of the city attorney, on the basis of
relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiff has indicated that Attorney
Howlett will testify about the faxes Plaintiff sent in January 2009 and the January
2009 CHRO MAR addenda. To the extent that Attorney Howlett is asked to testify
regarding Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain performance of the terms of the Settlement
Agreement such information would be relevant and therefore the objection is
overruled.
2 

Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of Daniel Salerno, a
CHRO Investigator, on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Plaintiff has indicated that Mr. Salerno will testify about the CHRO investigation.
The CHRO’s investigation is not relevant to Plaintiff’s remaining retaliation and
breach of contract claims as Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff engaged in a
protected activity when he filed a CHRO complaint. The investigation of and the
substantive claims of Plaintiff’s CHRO complaint are not relevant to Plaintiff’s
retaliation claim. The Plaintiff has failed to establish what material fact at issue
the proposed testimony would tend to prove or disprove. The objection is
sustained.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of Tanya Hughes, a
Regional CHRO manager on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Plaintiff has indicated that Ms. Hughes will testify about the CHRO matter merit
assessment. As discussed above, the CHRO’s investigation is not relevant to
Plaintiff’s remaining retaliation and breach of contract claims. The Plaintiff has
failed to establish what material fact at issue the proposed testimony would tend
to prove or disprove. Therefore the objection is sustained.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of Bonnie Robb on
the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiff has indicated that
Ms. Robb will testify about the history of black male foreign language candidates
in teaching certificate programs and Plaintiff’s teaching certification. The history
of black male foreign language candidates in teaching certificate programs is not
relevant to Plaintiff’s remaining retaliation and breach of contract claim. The
3 

Court dismissed Plaintiff’s disparate impact claim in its decision on the motion
for summary judgment. The Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish what
material fact at issue this proposed testimony regarding the history of black male
foreign language candidates in teaching certificate programs would tend to prove
or disprove. The objection to the proposed testimony regarding the history of
black male foreign language candidates in teaching certificate programs is
sustained. As the Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s qualification for the positions
for which he applied, evidence of Plaintiff’s professional credentials is relevant
and the objection is overruled as to the testimony regarding Plaintiff’s teaching
certification.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of the custodian of
records for Plaintiff’s Delaware Teachers Certification on the basis of relevance
pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. As the Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s
qualification for the positions for which he applied, evidence of Plaintiff’s
professional credentials is relevant and the objection is overruled. The Court
notes that Plaintiff need not have the custodian of records testify as to his
teaching certification and that Plaintiff may introduce the certification itself
directly into evidence.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of Kathy DeFelice,
Education Consultant Bureau of Educator Standards and Certification on the
basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiff has indicated that Ms.
DeFelice will testify about the Plaintiff’s teaching certification. As the Defendants
challenge Plaintiff’s qualification for the positions for which he applied, evidence
4 

of Plaintiff’s professional credentials are relevant and the objection is overruled.
The Court notes that Plaintiff need not have Ms. DeFelice testify as to his
teaching certification and that Plaintiff may introduce the certification itself
directly into evidence.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of the custodian of
records, NJ certification on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Plaintiff has indicated that custodian of records will testify about the Plaintiff’s
teaching certification. As the Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s qualification for the
positions for which he applied, evidence of Plaintiff’s professional credentials are
relevant and the objection is overruled. The Court notes that Plaintiff need not
have the custodian of records testify as to his teaching certification and that
Plaintiff may introduce the certification itself directly into evidence.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of Barbara
Canzonetti, an education consultant with the Connecticut State Department of
Education Bureau of Research, Evaluation, and Student Assessment on the basis
of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiff has indicated that Ms.
Canzonetti will testify about statistics regarding gender, race foreign language
teachings in Connecticut schools. As the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s disparate
impact claim in its order on the motion for summary judgment, such testimony is
not relevant to Plaintiff’s remaining retaliation and breach of contract claim. The
Plaintiff has failed to establish what material fact at issue the proposed testimony
would tend to prove or disprove. The objection is sustained.

5 

Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of the custodian of
records, US Postal Service on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
402. The Plaintiff has indicated the custodian of records will testify about the
U.S. mail processing. The Plaintiff has failed to establish what material fact at
issue the proposed testimony would tend to prove or disprove. Such testimony
has not been shown to be relevant to Plaintiff’s remaining claims and the
objection is sustained.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of the custodian of
records, Juno Online Services on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
402. The Plaintiff has indicated that the custodian of records will testify about the
Defendant’s email activity. The objection is sustained to the extent that
Defendants do no object to Plaintiff’s proffer of his Juno email records.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of Norma Bouchard
on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiff has indicated
that Ms. Bouchard will testify about the national study on secondary to
postsecondary foreign language article. As the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s
disparate impact claim in its order on the motion for summary judgment, such
testimony is not relevant to Plaintiff’s remaining retaliation and breach of contract
claim. The Plaintiff has failed to establish what material fact at issue the
proposed testimony would tend to prove or disprove. The objection is sustained.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of the Florida
Division of Driver License on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402.

6 

The Plaintiff has indicated that the Florida Division of Driver License will testify
about Plaintiff’s residency in Florida. Such testimony is not relevant to Plaintiff’s
remaining claims. The Plaintiff has failed to establish what material fact at issue
the proposed testimony would tend to prove or disprove. The objection is
sustained.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of the National Center
for Education Services on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Plaintiff has indicated that the National Center for Education Services will testify
about article regarding Digest of Education Statistics. As the Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s disparate impact claim in its order on the motion for summary
judgment, such testimony is not relevant to Plaintiff’s remaining retaliation and
breach of contract claim. The Plaintiff has failed to establish what material fact at
issue the proposed testimony would tend to prove or disprove. The objection is
sustained.
Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of the Florida
International University Office of the Registrar on the basis of relevance pursuant
to Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiff has indicated that the Registrar will testify about
Plaintiff’s spring attendance at the university. As the Defendants challenge
Plaintiff’s qualification for the positions for which he applied, evidence of
Plaintiff’s professional credentials is relevant to the issue of damages and
proximate cause. The objection is overruled.

7 

Defendants have objected to the proposed testimony of the custodian of
records, U.S. District Court on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
402. Plaintiff has indicated that the U.S. District Court custodian of records will
testify about Plaintiff’s NJ District civil action. Such testimony is not relevant to
Plaintiff’s remaining retaliation and breach of contract claim. The Plaintiff has
failed to establish what material fact at issue the proposed testimony would tend
to prove or disprove. The objection is sustained.
Defendants have objected to Plaintiff’s proposed exhibits 2 and 3 which are
articles regarding education statistics on the basis of relevant pursuant to Fed. R.
Evid. 402 and inadmissible hearsay. As the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s disparate
impact claim in its order on the motion for summary judgment, such evidence is
not relevant to Plaintiff’s remaining retaliation and breach of contract claim. The
Plaintiff has failed to establish what material fact at issue the proposed exhibit
would tend to prove or disprove. The objection is sustained.
Defendants have objected to Plaintiff’s proposed exhibit 8 which is an
unsigned version of the settlement agreement and requests that exhibit 8 should
be withdrawn and replaced with Defendant’s exhibit G which is the executed and
operative Settlement Agreement. The Court agrees and the objection is
sustained.
Defendants have objected to Plaintiff’s proposed exhibit 9 which is the
unsigned letter of reference and requests that exhibit 9 should be withdrawn and

8 

replaced with Defendant’s exhibit H which is the signed letter of reference. The
Court agrees and the objection is sustained.
Defendants have objected to the first page of Plaintiff’s proposed exhibit 10
which is a receipt for petty cash for copies of personnel files from the St. Lucie
County School Board on the basis of relevance. Such evidence is relevant
demonstrate that Plaintiff applied for employment with the St. Lucie County
School Board and therefore the objection is overruled.
Defendants have objected to Plaintiff’s proposed exhibit 14 which are
delivery receipts to the CRHO on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
402. As discussed above the CHRO investigation is not relevant to Plaintiff’s
remaining retaliation claim and breach of contract claims as Defendants do not
dispute that Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity when he filed a CHRO
complaint. The Plaintiff has failed to establish what material fact at issue the
proposed exhibit would tend to prove or disprove. The objection is sustained.
Defendants have objected to Plaintiff’s proposed exhibit 15 based on
relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. Exhibit 15 is a January 28, 2009 letter
from Hopkins to the CHRO regarding the status of references received or needed
by Florida School districts. Such evidence is relevant to demonstrate that
Plaintiff sought and Defendants failed to provide employment references and
therefore the objection is overruled.
Defendants have objected to Plaintiff’s proposed exhibit 16 based on
relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. Exhibit 15 is a fax verification and phone
9 

bills indicating that Plaintiff sent faxes to Mr. Ramos and others. Such evidence
is relevant to demonstrate that Plaintiff sought and Defendants failed to provide
employment references as was as well as Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain performance
of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and therefore the objection is
overruled.
Defendants have objected to Plaintiff’s proposed exhibit 17 on the basis of
relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. Exhibit 17 is correspondence from the
CHRO to Plaintiff confirming the CHRO’s receipt of Plaintiff’s request for
reconsideration of his CHRO complaint. Such evidence is not relevant to
Plaintiff’s remaining claims. The Plaintiff has failed to establish what material fact
at issue the proposed exhibit would tend to prove or disprove. The objection is
sustained.
Defendants have objected to Plaintiff’s proposed exhibit 20 on the basis of
relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. Exhibit 19 is a Plaintiff’s Official
Transcript from Florida International University. Such evidence is relevant to
demonstrate Plaintiff’s professional credentials.
Defendants have objected to the last two pages of Plaintiff’s proposed
exhibit 21 on the basis of relevance pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402. The last two
pages of exhibit 21 is an internet print out listing the administrators and
supervisors for the City of Bridgeport Board of Education. Such evidence is not
relevant to Plaintiff’s remaining claims. The Plaintiff has failed to establish what

10 

material fact at issue the proposed exhibit would tend to prove or disprove. The
objection is sustained.
C. Objections raised by the Plaintiff in the Joint Trial Memorandum
Plaintiff has summarily raised several objections to certain portions of
Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. Plaintiff is ordered to articulate with specificity
and clarity to what he objects and the legal basis for each objection citing the
applicable evidentiary rule by October 17, 2011.
D. Additional Evidentiary Ruling
Defendant may not offer in its case in chief evidence of Plaintiff’s
subsequent employment and termination as such evidence is irrelevant as there
is no evidence that any prospective employer actually considered Plaintiff’s
application for employment. The only evidence on the record is that the St. Lucie
School Board informed the Plaintiff that it did not have a complete application.
This Order does not preclude introduction of such evidence for impeachment or
rebuttal purposes.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______/s/___________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: October 13, 2011
11