Charles Bozzo v. Jennifer Nanasy, et al.

Grand Rapids, Michigan, employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a civil rights violation theory under 42 U.S.C. 1983.



rles Bozzo was fired from his job as a correctional officer with the Michigan Department of Corrections after a coworker accused him of making harassing comments. Years later, he sued two MDOC employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that

the pair violated Bozzo's constitutional rights in terminating him.



* * *



Beginning in 2013, Bozzo worked on-

and-off as a correctional officer at the Michigan Department of Corrections. But his

employment ended for good due to bad blood between him and Jane Doe, a fellow MDOC

employee. At one point in time, the two had carpooled together to work. In 2017, however, Doe

reported Bozzo for lewd and obscene comments made during their drives. Doe later reported

Bozzo for other instances of misconduct. Upon learning of these complaints, Bozzo seemingly

directed some "obscenities” at Doe when discussing her actions with fellow correctional officers.

R.1, PageID 10–12. Once Bozzo's words made their way back to Doe, she reported him for that

conduct, too.



The situation came to a head on June 19, 2019, when MDOC served Bozzo with a

misconduct charge regarding his carpool comments and his later remarks about Doe in the

workplace. The charge summarized the allegations against Bozzo as well as the MDOC rules his

purported misconduct implicated. Five days later, MDOC held a disciplinary conference with

Bozzo and his union representative. According to Bozzo, the conference was brief, amounting to

little more than his representative making a short statement about Bozzo's employment and the

charges. MDOC informed Bozzo of his termination on July 31, 2019.



Bozzo challenged that decision by invoking his collectively bargained right to arbitration.

A three-day arbitration hearing was held ending on December 17, 2020. At the hearing, Jennifer

Nanasy, MDOC's discipline coordinator, testified that MDOC applied its recently updated

employee policies to Bozzo, which took a more stringent approach to harassment allegations. A

few months later, on March 1, 2021, the arbitrator issued a ruling in favor of MDOC.



* * *



Although the statute of

limitations is an affirmative defense, an action remains subject to dismissal under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if the complaint's allegations "affirmatively show that the claim is

time-barred.” Cataldo v. U.S. Steel Corp., 676 F.3d 542, 547 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Jones

v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007)). In that instance, a plaintiff can survive dismissal only by

showing that an exception to the statute of limitations applies. Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia,

LLC, 717 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2013).

Affirmed