Have you ever felt the weight of an unjust performance review hanging over your career like a dark cloud? In this gripping episode of the Employee Survival Guide®, Mark Carey and his co-host unravel the harrowing tale of Jose Laporte, a corrections officer whose life took a dramatic turn after a single damaging review from a supervisor who barely knew him. This episode dives deep into the complexities of workplace discrimination, shedding light on the often invisible mechanisms that can derail a career. Join us as we explore the stark contrast between Laporte’s unjust demotion from a respected sergeant to a stripped rank and the leniency afforded to other officers who committed far more serious infractions.
The discussion goes beyond just one man’s story; it delves into the broader implications of discrimination in the workplace. We introduce the concept of the ‘mosaic of discrimination,’ a framework that helps piece together subtle patterns of bias that can support a legal case. As we navigate through the intricacies of employment law, we emphasize the importance of understanding your employee rights and the necessity of thorough documentation in protecting your career. Whether you’re facing a hostile work environment, retaliation, or any form of discrimination—be it race, gender, age, or disability—this episode is a must-listen for anyone looking to empower themselves in the workplace.
Mark and his co-host provide invaluable insights into how to effectively negotiate your severance package, understand your employment contract, and advocate for yourself when faced with employment disputes. They share insider tips on navigating performance reviews and performance improvement plans, ensuring that you have the tools to survive and thrive in your career. With discussions on employee empowerment and workplace culture, this episode serves as a beacon of hope for those grappling with workplace challenges.
Whether you’re dealing with the aftermath of a wrongful termination, navigating the complexities of employment discrimination, or simply seeking career development tips, the Employee Survival Guide® is here to help you reclaim your narrative. Tune in to hear real stories, gain practical advice, and learn how to stand up against workplace injustices. Don’t let a single review define your career; learn how to advocate for yourself and navigate the murky waters of employment law with confidence. Your survival in the workplace starts here!
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Transcript:
Speaker #0 Hey, it’s Mark here and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide, where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about, and a lot more. Speaker #1 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today, we’re going to do something a little different. I want to start by asking you to just perform a mental exercise with me. Speaker #2 Okay. Speaker #1 I want to put you in a very… specific, and I think very uncomfortable headspace. It’s a scenario that, well, I think it keeps a lot of people up at night. Not the monster under the bed, but, you know, the one in the corner office. Speaker #2 Workplace nightmare scenario. Speaker #1 Exactly. So imagine this. You’ve been at your job for nearly 20 years. You’re a veteran. You know the ropes. You know the people you know. You know where all the bodies are buried, metaphorically speaking, of course. Speaker #2 Of course. Speaker #1 You’ve put in the time. You’ve done the grunt work. And finally, after nearly two decades, you get that big promotion you’ve been working toward. You’ve got the stripes on your sleeve. And in the case we’re discussing today, I mean that literally. Speaker #2 Right. You’re climbing the ladder. You’ve moved from the rank and file into, well, into management. Speaker #1 And for almost a year, you are absolutely crushing it. Your direct boss, the guy who sees you every single day, the guy who knows how you work, who relies on you, he is writing you glowing reviews. He says you’re an asset. He says you’re the guy. You’re feeling secure. You’re planning your future. And then, you know, fast forward to some random Tuesday in November, you get pulled into a conference room. Speaker #2 But not by your boss. Speaker #1 No, not by your boss. You’re sitting across from a supervisor who, I mean, he barely knows you. Maybe you’ve seen him in the hallway. Maybe you’ve heard some rumors about him that he has a problem with, let’s say, people like you. Speaker #2 You don’t report to him. He doesn’t see your work. Speaker #1 Not at all. But he slides a piece of paper across the table. It’s a performance review. And it does not say good job. It says you’re failing. It says you’re incompetent. Speaker #2 And just like that, the career you built for 20 years is just it’s in jeopardy. The rug is pulled out from under you completely. Speaker #1 That’s exactly what we’re packing today. This is not a hypothetical. This isn’t a TV drama script. This is a real federal civil rights lawsuit. Jose Laporte v. Brian Sullivan. Speaker #2 It’s a fascinating case. We’re looking at case number 1.24 CV 11124 filed in the Northern District of New York. And what makes this deep dive so interesting and frankly so important is that we aren’t just reading, you know, nudes, headlines or opinion pieces. Speaker #1 Right. Speaker #2 We have the actual stack of legal filings right here. We’ve got the plaintiff’s complaint. That’s the accusation. We have the defendant’s answer. That’s the denial. And crucially, we have a critical memorandum decision from Judge Elizabeth C. Coombe. Speaker #1 And that decision is huge because it tells us why this case is even allowed to move forward. We’re going to get into the weeds of Section 1983, the Equal Protection Clause, and this really, well, this really powerful concept of the mosaic of discrimination. But before we get to the legal theory, we have to understand the human cost. What are the stakes here? Speaker #2 Well, the stakes are incredibly high. On a personal level, for Jose Laporte, it’s about his livelihood, his reputation, his pension, I mean, everything. Speaker #1 Yeah. Speaker #2 But on a broader level, this case explores the subtle mechanics of how discrimination can work in a rigid hierarchy, like a prison. And it highlights the incredibly high bar that’s required just to get a case heard in federal court. Most of these cases, they get thrown out before the public ever even hears about them. Speaker #1 So our mission today is to really understand what constitutes plausible discrimination in the eyes of law. How do, you know, stray remarks become actual evidence? And how do you prove bias when the person discriminating against you just claims they were doing their job? Speaker #2 Exactly. It’s a tough question. Speaker #1 So let’s start at the beginning. Who is the protagonist of this story? Who is Jose Laporte? Speaker #2 Okay, so Jose Laporte is a veteran of the system. The court documents describe him as a male of Hispanic national origin with a dark complexion. And he is not new to this world. He’s been working as a corrections officer at DOCCS, that’s the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, since 2003. Speaker #1 Wow. Okay, so doing the math, when this whole thing kicks off in 2021, he’s been walking the beat for nearly 18 years. Speaker #2 Right. Speaker #1 That’s a lifetime in corrections. Speaker #2 It is. It’s a high stress, dangerous environment. To last 18 years means you really know how to handle yourself. You know the protocols. And in December 2020, he gets his shot. He’s promoted to sergeant. Speaker #1 And in a paramilitary organization like a prison, going from officer to sergeant, that’s a massive leap. Speaker #2 Oh, it’s huge. It’s not just a pay raise. It’s a fundamental change in authority. You are now giving orders. You’re not just taking them. Speaker #1 But like any civil service gig, I’m guessing you don’t just get. the job forever right away. There’s a catch. Speaker #2 There’s always a catch. It’s the probationary period. It’s a standard one-year term where you have to prove you can handle the new rank. Speaker #1 A year-long job interview. Speaker #2 Think of it exactly like that. A year-long job interview where you’re already doing the job. If you mess up during that year, they can strip the rank, send you back down to officer status, and there’s not nearly as much red tape as there would be to fire a tenured employee. Speaker #1 That sounds incredibly stressful. You’re basically walking on eggshells for 365 days. Speaker #2 Absolutely. One wrong move, one bad report, and you’re right back in the uniform you just graduated from. Speaker #1 Okay. So Laporte starts his probationary year in December of 2020 at Greene County Correctional Facility. How does it go? Does he stumble out of the gate? Speaker #2 Not at all. It’s quite the opposite. We have what I’ve been calling the golden period. For the first nine or 10 months, there are zero issues. And we’re not just taking his word for it. We have the receipts. Speaker #1 Okay. Speaker #2 His first evaluation covers December 2020 to February 2021. It’s written by Lieutenant Petri. Speaker #1 And what does Petri say? Speaker #2 He writes that Laporte can be, and this is a quote, relied upon to complete all assigned tasks in a satisfactory manner. Speaker #1 Relied upon, in law enforcement, that is. That’s high praise. You want someone reliable. You don’t need a hero. You need someone who shows up and does the job right every single time. Speaker #2 Consistency is absolutely key. So then we move to the next chunk of time, April through July 2021. Now, his primary supervisor is a lieutenant, Mark Farrell. This is important. Remember that name. Speaker #1 It’s Farrell. Speaker #2 Got it. Farrell is the guy watching Laporte day in and day out. He’s the one seeing how Laporte handles inmates, how he handles other officers, how he handles all the paperwork. He’s the ground truth. Speaker #1 And what’s Farrell’s take on him? Speaker #2 It’s even better than Patriot’s. Farrell reports that Laporte is willing to accept assignments. He respects authority. And his knowledge of the rules is increasing. He’s checking all the boxes. He’s doing exactly what a probationary sergeant should be doing, learning, growing, and respecting the chain of command. Speaker #1 So we have two different supervisors over a period of almost nine months, both agreeing that this guy is solid sergeant material. Speaker #2 Yes. Speaker #1 There’s no paper trail of incompetence, no counseling memos, no disciplinary hearings, nothing. Speaker #2 Nothing. It is a completely clean sheet. But then we have a logistical shuffle. In September of 2021, Laporte gets transferred briefly to Downstate Correctional Facility, just for about five or six weeks, and then he comes right back to Greene in October. Speaker #1 And this brings us to the turning point. November 2nd, 2021. The date? Everything changes. Speaker #2 It’s November 2nd. Laporte is called in for a performance review. Now, logically, based on everything we know about, you know, corporate structures or paramilitary structures, who would you expect to be holding that meeting? Speaker #1 Well, Elton Farrell. He was the boss for the period being reviewed. He’s the one who wrote the last review. He knows the guy. It’s a no-brainer. Speaker #2 Precisely. The review period covered July through September. Farrell was the supervisor for the vast majority of that time. But when Laporte walks into the room, Farrell isn’t there. Sitting across the table is the defendant in this case, Lieutenant Brian Sullivan. Speaker #1 And Sullivan hands him a review that looks nothing like the previous ones. Speaker #2 It’s a total 180. Sullivan presents a review claiming Laporte is not… adapting well to the supervisory role. It says he needs to make greater effort. It highlights all these areas for improvement. It essentially paints a picture of a man who is just drowning in the job. Speaker #1 Wow. I’m trying to put myself in Laporte’s shoes here. You walk in expecting, I don’t know, a pat on the back or at least to keep it up, and you get hit with you’re failing. He must have been just bewildered. Speaker #2 The complaint says he found it puzzling, and I think that’s putting it mildly. Because, again, Sullivan wasn’t his direct supervisor during that period. Speaker #1 Right. Speaker #2 It’s like having a substitute teacher grade your final exam when they weren’t even in the classroom all semester. How does Sullivan even know he’s not adapting? On what basis? Speaker #1 And the consequences aren’t just, hey, try harder next time. This isn’t a slap on the wrist. Speaker #2 No. The consequences are nuclear. Based on this one negative review from Sullivan and completely ignoring the previous good ones from Pitry and Farrell, DOCCS takes action. On November 23, 2021, Laporte is demoted. Speaker #1 Oh, man. Speaker #2 He’s stripped of his sergeant rank and sent back to being a regular corrections officer. Speaker #1 That is just brutal. It’s a hit to the wallet, obviously salary pinch and all that. But the humiliation going back to work alongside the very people you were just supervising. Speaker #2 The complaint explicitly cites substantial embarrassment, humiliation and severe emotional distress. I mean, imagine the psychological toll. You’re a boss one day. The next day, you’re back on the line and everyone knows you were demoted. Speaker #1 Oh, the rumor mill must have been insane. Speaker #2 Vicious. Everyone’s whispering, what did he do? Why did he lose his stripes? It’s a public shaming, essentially. Speaker #1 Okay, so that is the narrative arc. A rise and then a sudden, very confusing fall. But this is where we have to put on our legal hats, because getting fired or demoted isn’t necessarily illegal. Speaker #2 Right. Speaker #1 People get demoted for bad performance all the time. Sometimes bosses are just jerks. And being a jerk isn’t illegal. So Laporte has to prove that this wasn’t about performance and it wasn’t just a personality clash. He has to prove it was about discrimination. Speaker #2 Correct. And that is incredibly hard to do. It’s the steepest hill to climb in employment law. Speaker #1 Why is it so hard? Speaker #2 Because today, you know, nobody writes a memo that says, I am demoting Jose because he is Hispanic. Speaker #1 Right. The evil villain monologue doesn’t exist in HR files. You are not going to find an email with the subject line. Let’s fire the minority guy. Speaker #2 Exactly. That’s what we call the smoking gun. And courts know that the smoking gun almost never exists anymore. People are smarter than that. Even the most biased individuals know how to code their language. Speaker #1 So what do you do? Speaker #2 So the legal system has developed a different way to look at the evidence. It’s called the mosaic theory. Speaker #1 I love this visual, the mosaic. Explain it to us. Speaker #2 It comes from a precedent case, Buonvi Spindler, which the judge in this case actually cites in her decision. And the idea is that discrimination is like a single mosaic tile. One tile by itself might not look like much. It’s just a blue square, you know. Speaker #1 Okay. Speaker #2 But if you gather enough of these tiles, a weird comment over here, a broken procedure there, a witness statement, a comparison to another employee, and you step back, does it form a picture? Does it form a recognizable image of discrimination? Speaker #1 It makes perfect sense. So you don’t need one big piece of proof. You need a lot of little pieces that only make sense when you put them all together. Speaker #2 Precisely. It’s about the totality of the circumstances. So let’s try to assemble this mosaic for Laporte. What are the tiles that he presented to the court to survive this? Motion to dismiss. Speaker #1 OK, let’s look at tile number one, the bypass supervisor. We already talked about L.T. Farrell, the actual boss. According to the legal documents, Farrell wasn’t just confused that Sullivan wrote the review. He was furious. Speaker #2 Furious is exactly the right word. The documents state that Farrell complained to his captain about Sullivan writing the review. He basically said, that is my job and that is my guy. Why is Sullivan even touching this? Speaker #1 Wow. Speaker #2 But he didn’t stop at just complaining verbally. On the very same day Laporte got that bad review, Farrell formally refuted it in writing. Speaker #1 Wait a minute. He went on the official record and contradicted another lieutenant. Speaker #2 He did. He wrote that Laporte was, and I’m quoting here without question, a very capable supervisor and an asset to the department. Speaker #1 That feels huge. I mean, in a paramilitary structure like a prison, chain of command is everything. You back the blue. You support your fellow officers. For one lieutenant to break rank and basically say, my colleague is lying or my colleague is wrong in a formal document, that tells me something really weird was going on. Speaker #2 It signals a massive breach of protocol. And the court looks at that deviation, that break from the normal way of doing things, and marks it as a huge red flag. Speaker #1 A procedural irregularity. Speaker #2 Exactly. Courts are very suspicious of procedural irregularities. If you have a standard process, Supervisor A always reads the review, and you suddenly switch to Supervisor B for no apparent reason, the court asks, why? If Laporte was truly failing, why did his direct supervisor think he was a star? Why did you have to bring in a pinch hitter just to fire him? Speaker #1 OK, so we have a procedural anomaly. That’s tile one. But procedural weirdness could just be office politics. Maybe Sullivan and Farrell just hate each other. That’s not necessarily racism. Speaker #2 Right. Speaker #1 Where do we get to the bias? Speaker #2 And this is tile two, the specific remarks. And this is where we get as close to a smoking gun as you’ll usually find in these cases. The complaint cites a witness. A Sergeant Murphy. Speaker #1 Okay, and what did Murphy hear? Speaker #2 Murphy wrote to HR, specifically to a woman named Kelly Ahern, that he heard Sullivan talking about Laporte. And the alleged quote is, people like him don’t make good sergeants. Speaker #1 People like him. Speaker #2 And there’s more. When Laporte was out on injury leave for a workers’ comp claim, Sullivan allegedly said, that’s typical of those kinds of people. Speaker #1 Those kinds of people. Speaker #2 It’s a phrase that carries a very, very heavy load. It’s not an explicit racial slur. He didn’t use the N-word. He didn’t use a derogatory slang term for Hispanics. But in the context of a discrimination suit, it’s what courts examine very closely. It’s coded language. Speaker #1 It’s the dog whistle. You hear it. I hear it. But he can claim he didn’t blow it. He can say, oh, I met people who get injured or I met people with less experience. Speaker #2 Precisely. It allows for plausible deniability. But when you stack it with the demotion, the inference becomes much darker. Why people like him. What is the defining characteristic of him in Sullivan’s eyes? Is it his injury or his dark complexion and Hispanic origin? The court has to decide if that ambiguity is evidence of bias. Speaker #1 And that brings us to tile three, the pattern of hostility. Because it wasn’t just Murphy who heard things. The complaint cites a whole course of other sergeants who came forward. Speaker #2 This is the part of the case that really surprised me. Usually in these kinds of environments, the code of silence or the blue wall, whatever you want to call it, it’s impenetrable. People are afraid to speak up against a superior officer. Speaker #1 Of course. Speaker #2 But here, multiple people broke rank. Speaker #1 Who else came forward? Speaker #2 There’s a Sergeant Kieser. Kieser wrote that if you are female or a minority, Sullivan, and I’m quoting the complaint here, We’ll find a way to belittle you and attempt to get you to resign. Speaker #1 In all caps like that, in the complaint. Speaker #2 The emphasis is in the source material. It suggests an active, aggressive intent. This isn’t passive bias. This is active hunting. Speaker #1 Wow. Speaker #2 Then there’s Sergeant Melody Rodriguez. She is a Hispanic sergeant who had worked with Sullivan back in 2017 and 2018. Speaker #1 And what was her experience? Speaker #2 She claims that Sullivan called her a city idiot. Speaker #1 A city idiot. Speaker #2 And that he did everything in his power to demote her solely because she was a female Hispanic supervisor. Speaker #1 City idiot. You know, that feels like a very specific, almost geography-based insult. Greene County is rural. A lot of the officers there are probably local. But city is so often used as a proxy for race or culture, implying someone from the urban area doesn’t belong here. It’s an outsider label. Speaker #2 It is absolutely a loaded term. It creates an us-versus-them dynamic. And then maybe the most disturbing piece of this pattern is an anonymous letter that was sent to the personnel office. Speaker #1 Anonymous letters are tricky legal evidence, though, aren’t they? I mean, anyone could write them. Speaker #2 They are, and usually they carry less weight. But the context here matters. The writer explicitly stated they feared retaliation. They wrote that they had witnessed many new sergeants get demoted or forced to resign and noted that the majority of them were minorities or females. It reinforces this idea that Laporte wasn’t a one-off. He was part of a trend, a systemic cleansing of the ranks, if you will. Speaker #1 So we have the irregularity, we have the comments, and we have the witnesses showing a pattern. But there’s one more tile to this mosaic, isn’t there? The comparison. Speaker #2 The comparators. This is a crucial legal test called disparate treatment. Essentially, the law asks, are similarly situated employees treated differently? If you fire the Hispanic guy for performance, did you fire the white guy for the same thing? If the rules apply to everyone, they have to apply to everyone equally. Speaker #1 And what did the complaint find regarding these comparators? Speaker #2 It points to two specific comparators. Both are Caucasian probationary surgeons. Let’s just call them Comparator A and Comparator B. Speaker #1 Okay, let’s look at Comparator A. What did he do? Speaker #2 Comparator A was arrested. Speaker #1 Arrested, like handcuffs, back of a police car, arrested. Speaker #2 It’s a blink for a domestic violence incident. Speaker #1 Okay, so surely if Laporte gets demoted for a bad review and not adapting well, the guy who gets arrested for a violent crime? Speaker #2 Yeah. Speaker #1 He lost his job. Speaker #2 Result? Not demoted. Speaker #1 You have got to be kidding me. Okay. What about Comparator B? Speaker #2 Comparator B is described in the complaint as a flagrant time and attendance abuser. He allegedly called out of work due to inebriation. Speaker #1 Being drunk. Speaker #2 Being drunk, yes. And failed to do his job when he did actually show up. Speaker #1 So let me get this straight. We have a guy arrested for violence. We have another guy calling in drunk. And they keep their stripes. Speaker #2 They both remain sergeants. Speaker #1 But Laporte. who has no formal or informal counseling on his record whatsoever, gets demoted because one guy, who isn’t even his boss, says he’s not adapting well. Speaker #2 That is the absolute core of the disparate treatment argument. The comparison is stark. Laporte had no severe behavioral issues, no legal issues, just a disputed performance review. The others had conduct that is objectively far worse criminal in one case, yet they suffered fewer consequences. Speaker #1 That is… That is really hard to explain away. If you’re the defense, how do you even argue against that? Well, we prefer domestic violence to bad management. Speaker #2 Yeah. Speaker #1 This sounds absurd. Speaker #2 It puts the defense in a very, very tight spot. And that brings us to part three, the legal battle. Because Sullivan and his team, they didn’t just roll over. They filed a Rule 12b6. Okay, Speaker #1 let’s pause and explain that. We hear motion to dismiss on TV all the time. What does 12b6 actually mean in plain English? Speaker #2 In plain English, 12b6 is this defendant basically saying, so what? They’re arguing that even if every single thing the plaintiff says is true, it still doesn’t amount to a violation of a law. It’s a failure to state a claim. Speaker #1 Like a bouncer at a club. Speaker #2 Exactly. You walk up with your ID and the bouncer says, it doesn’t matter if your ID is real. You’re not on the list. Speaker #1 So they’re not saying we didn’t do it. They’re saying it doesn’t matter if we did because it’s not illegal enough. Speaker #2 At this stage, yes, that’s the tactical maneuver. Sullivan’s argument was that Laporte’s allegations were conclusory. That’s a lawyer word for you’re just guessing. He argued there was no proof of discriminatory intent. Speaker #1 And what about the comments? Those kinds of people stuff. Do they try to wave those away? Speaker #2 Sullivan’s defense tried to categorize those as stray remarks. This is a legal doctrine. They argued the remarks were vague, they were isolated, and they weren’t directly connected to the decision to demote him. Basically, I might have said something rude once or made a generalization, but that doesn’t mean I fired him because of his race. Maybe I just don’t like him. Speaker #1 But the judge didn’t buy it. Speaker #2 Judge Elizabeth C. Coombe denied the motion. And her reasoning is really important for anyone interested in civil rights law. She clarified the standard. She said the plaintiff doesn’t need to prove the case yet. He just needs to make the claim plausible. Speaker #1 Plausible. That is the key word. Speaker #2 Right. Is it plausible that discrimination occurred? Does the story hang together? And to back this up, the judge cited a precedent case called Tolbert v. Smith. This is a really intense case that serves as the backbone for her entire decision. Speaker #1 Tell us about Tolbert. I want to hear the story behind the precedent. Speaker #2 Tolbert involved a black cooking teacher who was denied tenure. And the principal in that case had made some just horrific comments. He asked the teacher if he could only cook black or if he could cook American, too. Speaker #1 Wow. Speaker #2 And he told students that black kids can’t learn. All they want to do is eat. Speaker #1 Good Lord. That is explicit. That is vile. Speaker #2 It is. But here’s the legal connection. In Tolbert, there were also procedural irregularities. The principal changed who conducted the year-end evaluation without any notice. He broke the normal rules of how teachers are evaluated just to ensure that he could deliver the negative review himself. Speaker #1 Just like Sullivan did with Laporte. Speaker #2 Exactly like Sullivan did. The court in Tolbert ruled that when you combine racist remarks with procedural irregularities, you have a prima facie case. So Judge Coombe applied that same logic here. She said the combination of Sullivan’s alleged remarks, those kinds of people, plus less the irregularity of swapping out the reviewer, that was enough to infer a discriminatory motive. Speaker #1 So the takeaway is, you don’t need a video recording of someone admitting to racism. The mosaic of weird procedure plus questionable comments is enough to get you in front of a jury. Speaker #2 Precisely. It establishes an inference of discrimination. It moves the needle from maybe to plausible. Speaker #1 Now, we have to be fair here. We spent a lot of time on the plaintiff’s side. But Sullivan and the state… They have filed an answer. They’re not just sitting silently. This is part four. The defense. What are they saying? Speaker #2 So we have the answer, which was filed by the attorney general’s office on Sullivan’s behalf. And it’s a very standard, very strategic legal document. It’s a shield wall. Speaker #1 What do they admit to? Do they admit any of the weird timeline stuff? Speaker #2 They admit the absolute basics. They admit Laporte was an employee. They admit Sullivan wrote the evaluation on November 2, 2021. And… This card is interesting. They admit Sullivan did not issue any written formal counseling to Laporte prior to this. Speaker #1 Wait, they admit there was no written warning. Speaker #2 Yes. Instead, what they claim is that there was informal verbal counseling. Speaker #1 Informal verbal counseling. The he said, she said of the corporate world. I told you to fix this. No, you didn’t. Speaker #2 Exactly. It’s impossible to prove or disprove without a recording. I pulled him aside in the hallway and told him to step it up. It’s a very convenient defense because it leaves no paper trail. Speaker #1 And the remarks. The city idiot stuff. Speaker #2 Yeah. They categorically deny them. They deny saying people like him. They deny calling anyone a city idiot. They deny any conspiracy to demote minorities. And they claim they have no knowledge of those letters from the other sergeants. Speaker #1 Of course. I didn’t see it. I didn’t see it. But then they list their affirmative defenses. These are the, even if I did it, I was allowed to arguments, right? Speaker #2 Right. This is where the legal strategy gets complex. The first big one is qualified immunity. Speaker #1 We hear this term a lot, usually with police officers in shooting cases. How does it apply to a performance review? Speaker #2 Qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability as long as they aren’t violating clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Sullivan is claiming, essentially, look, I was acting within the scope of my job as a lieutenant. I have the authority to write reviews. Even if I made a mistake, I shouldn’t be personally sued for just doing my job. Speaker #1 The get out of jail free card for civil servants. Speaker #2 In many ways, yes. But the big defense that really jumped out at me in the outline, was this Mount Healthy defense. This is a deep cut of legal doctrine. Speaker #1 What in the world is Mount Healthy? It sounds like a brand of yogurt. Speaker #2 It does, doesn’t it? Mount Healthy is a crucial Supreme Court doctrine from a case called Mount Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle. And essentially, the defense is arguing this. OK, fine. Maybe there was some bias. Maybe Sullivan doesn’t like Hispanic officers. Maybe he shouldn’t have said those things. But UT. We would have demoted Laporte anyway because his performance was bad. Speaker #1 Hold on. They can admit to bias but still win. Speaker #2 Yes. If they can prove that the outcome would have been the same regardless of the bias, it’s a but-for causation argument. They’re saying the bias wasn’t the cause of the demotion. The poor performance was the cause. The bias was just… you know, background noise. Speaker #1 But that circles right back to the problem we talked about earlier. The only evidence of bad performance is the review written by the biased guy. Speaker #2 Exactly. That is the circular logic. If the bad performance is documented only by the person with the bad intent, does the defense even hold water? If I say you’re failing because I’m racist, and then I use your failure to justify firing you, haven’t I just laundered my racism through a performance review? Speaker #1 That is exactly where the battle will be fought in court. That circular logic is what a jury will have to untangle. It seems like a very, very slippery defense in this specific context. Speaker #2 It is. They also threw in something called the Farragher-Ellerth defense. Speaker #1 What is that one? Speaker #2 Yes, this is a classic employer defense. It says, hey, DOCCS has systems in place to prevent harassment. We have HR. We have hotlines. If Laporte didn’t use them properly or didn’t report it soon enough, that’s on him. It’s essentially shifting the burden back to the victim for not navigating the bureaucracy perfectly. Speaker #1 Which feels pretty rich considering he wrote to the superintendent on the same day he got the bad review. Speaker #2 Correct. The facts of the case seem to challenge that defense pretty strongly, but lawyers will always assert it just to see if it sticks. They throw everything at the wall. Speaker #1 Let’s zoom out for a second. We’ve been talking about this specific case, but I want to understand the machinery here. This is a Section 1983 lawsuit. Why is that number so important? We hear about Title VII a lot, but what is 1983? Speaker #2 This brings us to the real heavy lifting of civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. It is one of the most powerful tools in American history. It was originally part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Speaker #1 Wow, going way back, 1871. That’s Reconstruction era. Speaker #2 Yes. It was designed to allow citizens to sue government employees who are acting under color of state law for violating their constitutional rights. Back then, it was because local sheriffs in the South were, you know, helping the Klan or refusing to protect freed slaves. The federal government said, if the state won’t protect you, you can sue the individual officer in federal court. Speaker #1 And the distinction here is that Laporte is suing Sullivan, the person, not just the Department of Corrections. Speaker #2 That is a key distinction. Usually in employment cases like Title VII, you sue the company or the agency. DOCCS discriminated against me. But Section 1983 allows you to. To pierce that veil and go after the individual officer. It says, you, Brian Sullivan, use your badge and your rank to violate my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment. Speaker #1 That really raises the stakes for the defendant personally. It’s personal now. Speaker #2 Significantly. If he loses and qualified immunity is denied, he could be personally liable for damages. It sends a message that you can’t just hide behind your uniform. Speaker #1 But the burden of proof is on Laporte. Speaker #2 It is. He has to prove four things. One, he’s a member of a protected class, Hispanic. Two, he was qualified for the position. The good reviews helped there. Three, there was an adverse action, the demotion. And four, the hardest one, an inference of discrimination. Speaker #1 And that fourth one is always the hardest. Speaker #2 Always. That’s why the stray remarks doctrine is so debated. If a boss says this person is lazy, that’s vague. It might just mean they think the person is lazy. But if a boss says people like him don’t make good sergeants, that connects the negative view directly to his identity. That’s what moves a remark from stray to evidence. Speaker #1 And the similarly situated standard, the comparators, is the other pillar. Speaker #2 Right. You have to compare apples to apples, or in this case, sergeants to sergeants. If the white sergeant gets a pass for domestic violence and the Hispanic sergeant gets demoted for not adapting, the law asks why. The answer, the plaintiff argues, is race. There’s no other logical variable that explains the difference in treatment. Speaker #1 It’s a compelling argument. OK. So where do we stand now? The motion to dismiss was denied. The case is alive. Speaker #2 Right. We’re in the critical analysis phase now. And the timeline here is fascinating to me because Laporte did not take this lying down. A lot of people, when they get demoted, they just quit. Or they put their head down and accept it because they need the paycheck. Speaker #1 No. Looking at the documents, he was incredibly proactive. The defense argues he failed to report. But look at the dates. November 2nd gets the review. November 2nd writes to the superintendent. November 2nd writes to Kelly Ahern in HR. Speaker #2 He documented. everything immediately, which is a lesson for everyone listening. Documentation is your lifeline. If it is not written down, it didn’t happen. If Laporte hadn’t written those letters that day, the defense of he never complained might have actually worked. Speaker #1 But what strikes me even more is the breakage of that code of silence. Speaker #2 The blue wall. Speaker #1 Exactly. In law enforcement and corrections, there’s a tremendous pressure to back your brother officers, to not snitch, to protect the shield. Speaker #0 But here you have Street Murphy, Steet Neves, Esquit Farrell, all putting their names on documents that support Laporte and directly contradict Sullivan. Speaker #1 It is rare. It takes courage. It suggests that Sullivan was perhaps so egregious or maybe so disliked that the loyalty to the blue wall was outweighed by the sense of injustice. Or perhaps the culture is shifting. Speaker #0 And the anonymous letter writer, that person was terrified, expressly fearful of retaliation, the complaint says. That fear speaks volumes about the culture inside Greene County Correctional Facility. It suggests that what happened to Laporte wasn’t an accident. It was a known risk for anyone who didn’t fit the mold. Speaker #1 It paints a picture of a toxic environment. And that environment is now going to be dragged into the sunlight of a federal courtroom. Speaker #0 So what happens next? Does Laporte win? Does he get his stripes back? Speaker #1 Not yet. The denied motion just means the game is on. Now they move into discovery. This is where it gets real. And if he lies, it’s perjury. Exactly. They will depose Farrell. Why did you fight for a report? They will subpoena emails. They’ll look for text messages between supervisors. If Sullivan really did call someone a city idiot, is there a digital trail? Is there a text to a buddy somewhere? Speaker #0 And interestingly, both sides have requested a jury trial. Speaker #1 Which is a gamble for both. Sullivan’s team might think a jury will respect the rank and authority of a lieutenant. They might bank on that back the blue sentiment. Speaker #0 Right. Speaker #1 Laporte’s team is betting that a jury of regular people will look at the drunk sergeant versus the Hispanic sergeant and see the unfairness immediately. They’re betting on the common sense of the jury. Speaker #0 It’s a high stakes poker game now. And the legal costs alone will be significant. The state is paying for the defense. But Laporte is likely paying out of pocket or on contingency. Speaker #1 It’s a war of attrition. But getting past the motion to dismiss is a huge victory for the plaintiff. Most cases die right there. Speaker #0 So let’s wrap this up. We have a sergeant with a spotless record under one boss and a career-ending review from another. We have allegations of city idiots and those kinds of people. And we have a court saying, yes, this looks like it could be discrimination. Speaker #1 It’s a textbook example of how modern discrimination cases are fought. It’s not about a burning cross on the lawn anymore. It’s about a performance review. It’s about a procedural shift. It’s about the mosaic. It’s subtle, it’s bureaucratic, and it’s devastating. Speaker #0 And here’s the provocative thought I want to leave our listeners with today. The defense argues that Mount Healthy Defense, we would have demoted him anyway based on performance. But if the only official record of poor performance was written by the person accused of bias. Is it ever actually possible to separate the performance from the prejudice? Speaker #1 That is the million-dollar question. If the fruit is from a poisonous tree, can you ever really say the fruit is safe to eat? The jury is going to have to decide if Sullivan’s bias infected the entire evaluation process, rendering the performance argument totally void. I mean, if the rule you’re measuring with is crooked, every single measurement will be wrong. Speaker #0 A fascinating case, and one we will definitely be watching as it moves through the Northern District of New York. We will include links to the court decision in the description. in the show notes for anyone who wants to read Judge Coombs’ analysis themselves. It’s worth a read, especially that part about Tolbert. Speaker #1 Absolutely. It’s a masterclass in legal reasoning. Speaker #0 Thanks for diving deep with us. Remember, check your sources, document your wins and your losses, and we’ll catch you on the next one. Speaker #2 Hey, it’s Mark, and thank you for listening to this episode of the Employee Survival Guide. If you’d like to be interviewed for our podcast and share your story about what you’re going through at work and do so anonymously, please send me an email at m… C-A-R-E-Y at CAPCLaw.com. And also, if you like this podcast episode and others like it, please leave us a review. It really does help others find this podcast. So leave a review on Apple or Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you very much and glad to be of service to you.