Latest Mosby complaint against BoE hits the hopper

NORWALK, Conn. – A complaint filed by a member of a litigious Norwalk family against the Board of Education has been dismissed.

Alvin Mosby said in his October complaint to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) that he was fighting to reverse the collective bargaining agreement between AFSCME Local 1042 and the BoE that requires that custodians who retire after 2016 to pay their own health insurance premiums. Mosby stated that not grandfathering in the current employees with the old practice of having the board pay the premiums will result in discrimination because most of the employees who had previously retired are white.

Mosby alleged that his personal information was released to NancyOnNorwalk because he is black. Mosby said the publishing of his address and salary caused him humiliation and loss of privacy.

CHRO said in a Feb. 9 letter to Mosby, provided to NancyOnNorwalk by Deputy Corporation Counsel Jeffry Spahr, that Mosby has no standing to bring his claim regarding the contract because it applies to retirees and he is still an active employee. The contract’s changes become effective in June 2016 and Mosby “has not yet suffered an actionable adverse employment action.”

Half of the employees who the changes will apply to are not black, CHRO states.

“The complainant has failed to establish a basis for a claim of an adverse employment action, in that he has not suffered any loss, or impairment related to the provision of medical benefits and the properly negotiated and ratified CBA change he relies upon, will not become effective for more than a year. Even then, it would only apply to a retiree,” CHRO Regional Manager Paul Gaynor wrote in the Merit Assessment Review letter.

The documents regarding Mosby that were printed on this website were public information, subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This includes his salary as a public employee.

“Traditionally the salaries of public employees, such as the complainant, are widely broadcast and published on an annual basis in most newspapers,” Gaynor wrote, going on to say that there is no evidence that the Board was responsible for giving the information to the press, and no evidence that Mosby’s race had anything to do with it.

The release of the information is not covered in employment laws and “firmly and appropriately lies within the public domain and its revelation can therefore not be claimed to be a basis for embarrassment and/or humiliation,” Gaynor wrote.

Mosby wrote in a Feb. 24 letter to CHRO that he objected to the commission’s dismissal of the complaint “without a thorough investigation” and “this seems to be a pattern by the commission.” Mosby requested that the complaint be reinstated. That request was denied in a March 2 letter.

Mosby is free to pursue the matter in civil court within 90 days, the letter states.