Michael Roma v. LLC (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (# 118)

In this action, the plaintiff, Michael Roma (“Roma”), has filed an amended complaint in one count alleging “Unlawful Termination” in violation of “Conn. General Statute section 46a–60(a)(1) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.2000 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Americans with Disabilities Act, U.S.C. 12101, et seq.”

He alleges that on or about July 6, 2011, he was unlawfully terminated from his position as an x-ray technician by the defendant, Urgent Care of Brookfield, LLC, “because of his physical disability and gender.”

The plaintiff filed a complaint with the Commission On Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) regarding his discharge.   On May 21, 2012, the plaintiff received a release of jurisdiction by email from CHRO. On August 23, 2012, the plaintiff caused his writ of summons and complaint to be served on the defendant.

In its answer, the defendant denied those allegations.   The defendant has filed the instant motion to dismiss claiming that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims as the action was untimely filed.

In its initial motion to dismiss (# 118) dated July 9, 2013, the defendant only sought to dismiss the plaintiff's claim of violation of C.G.S. § 46a–60(a)(1) for the failure of the plaintiff to commence this action with 90 days of receipt of the release of jurisdiction notice as per C.G.S. § 46a–101.

On September 10, 2013, the defendant filed a reply to the plaintiff's objection to the motion to dismiss in which the defendant conceded that it had initially limited its motion to the Connecticut statute of limitations, § 46a–101, but that its intention was to make the same argument as to the federal statute of limitations for commencement of this action as well.

The basis of the defendant's motion is lack of subject matter jurisdiction which can be raised at any time.   The court considers the motion to dismiss to relate to both the state and federal rights which are the basis of the plaintiff's complaint.

The defendant notes that, “As with its state counterpart, Title VII provides that within ninety days of receipt of a release of jurisdiction letter, ‘a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge ․ by the person claiming to be aggrieved[.]’  42 U.S.C. § 2000 e–5(f)(1).”   It is further noted that that requirement has been extended to discrimination claims brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

In the instant case, the release of jurisdiction was emailed to the plaintiff on May 21, 2012.   The plaintiff was required to commence his suit within 90 days of that date—August 19, 2012.   This action was not commenced until service on the defendant on August 23, 2012.   That notice was not in conformity with either the state or federal laws.   The court lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case.   The defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby granted.

BY THE COURT,

JOSEPH W. DOHERTY

Doherty, Joseph W., J.