Williams et al v. Semple

Filing 38

ORDER denying without prejudice 17 Motion to Dismiss. Please see attached Ruling and Order. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 3/31/16. (Samuels, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
TERRI WILLIAMS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SCOTT SEMPLE,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:15-cv-465 (RNC)

RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiffs, employees of the Connecticut Department of
Correction ("DOC"), bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against DOC Commissioner Scott Semple in his official capacity
claiming that they have been subjected to race discrimination and
retaliation by DOC in the context of promotional opportunities.
The complaint includes allegations regarding each of the named
plaintiffs as well as general allegations regarding a "history of
discrimination and retaliation" by DOC.
at 6.

See Compl. (ECF No. 1)

As remedies, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, a

declaratory judgment that the practices alleged are unlawful,
discriminatory, and retaliatory, and fees and costs.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
on several grounds, including the statute of limitations and the
Eleventh Amendment.

The Court will not address the validity of

those grounds at this time because, as a preliminary matter, the
claims of the five plaintiffs are not properly joined in this
1

action.1

To rectify the improper joinder, the claims of the four

plaintiffs other than Terri Williams, the first-named plaintiff,
will be severed and dismissed without prejudice to refiling in
separate actions.

In light of this disposition, the motion to

dismiss is denied without prejudice.
This case has been filed as a putative class action.

But no

motion for class certification was filed or proposed until the
deadline for such a motion had long passed.2

Plaintiffs have not

shown good cause for extending the deadline.

Moreover, there is

little point in granting plaintiffs an opportunity to seek class
certification, as the Supreme Court recently instructed that the
class action device may not be used to aggregate entity-wide
employment discrimination claims without "some glue holding the
alleged reasons for all those [employment] decisions together."
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2552 (2011).
This Court has already determined that the plaintiffs’

1

Because the status of sovereign immunity as an issue of
subject matter jurisdiction or an affirmative defense is an open
question in the Second Circuit, see Moore v. Connecticut Dep't of
Correction, No. 3:14-CV-01002 JAM, 2015 WL 778626, at *2 n.2 (D.
Conn. Feb. 24, 2015), the Court need not address the defendant’s
Eleventh Amendment argument at this time.
2

The Standing Order on Scheduling in Civil Cases provides
that motions for class certification must be filed within 60 days
after the filing of the complaint. See Order on Pretrial
Deadlines (ECF No. 2) at (b). The complaint was filed on March
31, 2015, so the deadline to file a motion seeking class
certification was May 30, 2015. Plaintiffs' proposed motion for
class certification was not filed until October 6, 2015. See ECF
No. 27-1.
2

claims are not properly joined under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.

See

Igidi v. Department of Correction, 13-cv-1338, ECF No. 29.

These

five plaintiffs were part of the group of plaintiffs that
attempted to join their claims in the Igidi case.

The Court

severed the claims as improperly joined because the plaintiffs
"held different jobs at different institutions and complain of
distinct alleged acts of discrimination by unrelated actors over
a period of more than a decade."

Id.

In light of the severance,

the Court dismissed the claims without prejudice to refiling in
separate actions.
Plaintiffs respond that their claims should not suffer the
same fate as in the Igidi case because this action asserts more
limited claims against DOC based on failures to promote.
However, these individual disparate treatment claims are no more
suited to joinder now than they were at the time of the Court's
prior ruling.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, the usual remedy for
improper joinder is severance.

See Nassau Cty. Ass'n of Ins.

Agents, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 497 F.2d 1151, 1154 (2d
Cir. 1974).

As in Igidi, the Court exercises its discretion

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 to sever the claims brought by each
plaintiff.

Plaintiff Williams, as the first-listed plaintiff,

may pursue her claims in this action, and the claims of the other
four plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in

3

separate actions.

See Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350

(9th Cir. 1997); Dolan v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Indiana, 297 F.R.D.
210, 213 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).

To the extent defendant has defenses

to the claims asserted in this action, defendant remains free to
assert them here and in any other action filed as a result of the
severance.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied without
prejudice.

The claims of the four plaintiffs other than Terri

Williams are severed and dismissed without prejudice to refiling
in separate actions.

If plaintiff Williams wishes to proceed

with this action, she is directed to file and serve on or before
April 29, 2016 an amended complaint containing her own claims
under § 1983.

Discovery in this matter will continue to be

stayed, see Order Granting Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 34),
until an amended complaint is filed.

If an amended complaint has

not been filed by April 29, 2016, the action will be dismissed.
So ordered this 31st day of March 2016.

/s/ RNC
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge

4