Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D. Conn.: Driver removed from light-duty job after reporting racial slurs advances several claims, (Mar 11, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

Though the employer argued that he could not perform the essential functions of his pre-injury position, he plausibly alleged he could perform a dispatcher job.

A Black truck driver who was placed in a dispatcher role for almost a year after he suffered an on-the-job back injury, but then was placed on an indefinite leave of absence two months after reporting to HR that coworkers harassed him by using the “N-word” and talking about lynching, survived a motion to dismiss his claims of race and disability discrimination, race-based hostile work environment (HWE), and retaliation. However, a federal court in Connecticut tossed his claim that his coworkers’ mocking of his injury created a disability-based HWE (Little v. R & L Carriers, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00836-OAW (D. Conn. Mar. 9, 2025)).

Back injury. The employee started working for the employer as a truck driver in January 2021. In November, he sustained a work-related back injury which resulted in his doctor placing him on light duty work restrictions. As a result, he was assigned to a dispatcher position—a job he claimed he performed well.

Coworker harassment. His coworkers allegedly used racial epithets at and around him before and after his injury. While he was working as a truck driver, at least three different coworkers allegedly used the “N-word,” and one also allegedly talked about how he was going to lynch him. Though a supervisor allegedly once heard the remarks and told the coworker to stop, he resumed once the supervisor walked away. The coworkers also allegedly harassed him because of his back injury by calling him “Princess” and “mimicking” him.

HR complaint. On September 24, 2022, he filed an internal complaint of race discrimination but was allegedly told the HR department “could do nothing.” Two months later he was removed him from the dispatcher job without explanation and placed on an indefinite leave of absence while his workers’ compensation claim continued.

Administrative complaints. On December 9, 2022, he cross-filed an administrative charge with the EEOC and the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), naming R & L Carriers Shared Services, LLC. (RLCSS) as the respondent. He claimed that on July 26, 2023, he amended his complaints to add Shared Services, LLC (SS). He later brought this lawsuit against both companies (collectively, the employer) alleging violations of the Title VII and Section 1981, the ADA, and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA).

Exhaustion and timeliness. At the outset, the court rejected defendant SS’s contention that the employee failed to administratively exhaust his Title VII and ADA counts against the company. As proof, the company submitted the EEOC’s Right to Sue letter which only named RLCSS as respondent. However, the employee plausibly alleged that SS had actual knowledge of his original EEOC charge since RLCSS was its “principal member” and had made clear that the employee’s connection to it was through SS. The court also rejected SS’s contention that the employee’s HWE claims against it were time-barred since the two defendants appeared to share interrelated operations sufficient to satisfy the “identity of interest” test.

“Qualified” individual. The court next rejected the employer’s contention that the employee’s claims of disability bias and failure-to-accommodate failed because he admittedly could not perform the essential functions of his truck driving job. He argued that he was qualified to perform the dispatcher job, and both the language of the ADA and Second Circuit caselaw supported the conclusion that the “job at issue” analysis may include the position the plaintiff seeks, explained the court.

He sufficiently alleged he was qualified to perform the dispatcher position by asserting that he performed the job “for a period of time,” and performed the “job well.” He also refuted the employer’s contention that the position constituted a promotion by alleging that it did not require any additional training. Thus, he plausibly alleged he was a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA.

Merging his failure-to-accommodate claims into his disability discrimination claims, the court rejected the employer’s contention that dismissal was warranted since it accommodated him by placing him on a medical leave of absence. “Insisting upon an accommodation for a role Plaintiff does not seek, and one that he may never be able to perform again,” is not reasonable accommodation, nor is indefinite medical leave.

Race discrimination. At the pleadings stage he also sufficiently alleged that his coworkers’ abusive comments created a “discriminatory atmosphere” that could raise a plausible inference of discriminatory intent under McDonnell Douglas, without evidence that the perpetrators had control over his employment. Though he did not identify all the coworkers who allegedly harassed him or the dates of these incidents, he made a prima facie case of race and color discrimination under Title VII and the CFEPA such that his race discrimination claims could proceed. However, he failed to meet the higher requirements of Section 1981, under which he had to plead that race was a “but-for cause” of his removal from the dispatcher position.

Race-based HWE. While the employee also failed to plausibly allege that he was subjected to sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct to support his disability-based HWE claim, his race-based HWE claim advanced to discovery. In addition to plausibly alleging that his coworkers’ racial epithets and threats of physical violence were sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment, he also adequately alleged liability by claiming that the employer was aware of the racial harassment and took no action.

Retaliation. Finally, he plausibly alleged that the employer removed him from the dispatcher position and placed him on a leave of absence in retaliation for his HR complaint. His loss of income and removal from a desired job could “dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination,” and therefore could constitute a “materially adverse change.” Moreover, the two-month period between his complaint and removal supported an inference of causation.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-00836-OAW.

Judge: Williams, O.

Attorneys: James V. Sabatini (Sabatini & Associates) for Darrin Little. William C. Ruggiero (Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart) for R & L Carriers Shared Services, LLC.

Companies: R & L Carriers, Inc.; R & L Carriers Shared Services, LLC

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation CoverageLiability Procedure ConnecticutNews