Vanessa Lynne Bryant

Nilda Martinez, a Hispanic woman born in Puerto Rico and employed as a clerk typist at the Connecticut State Library, sued her employer alleging discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment based on race, ethnicity, and national origin under Title VII, as well as similar claims under the ADA due to her chronic asthma and under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, plus a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the State Library's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. It reasoned that Martinez had not shown she experienced an adverse employment action tied to her protected characteristics, that the nine alleged derogatory comments were insufficient to establish a severe or pervasive hostile environment, that the employer had offered a reasonable accommodation for her asthma by permitting a space heater, and that sovereign immunity barred the emotional distress claim against the state entity.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case arising from a multi-vehicle highway accident in Connecticut, plaintiffs Iosif and Marianna Ghimbasan sued truck driver Jeffrey Rice and his employer S & H Express for injuries and loss of consortium, bringing claims including statutory recklessness under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-295 and reckless entrustment/hiring against the employer. The court ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss several counts under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It denied dismissal of the statutory recklessness claim against Rice and the related consortium claim, but granted dismissal of the reckless entrustment claims against S & H Express and associated consortium claims. The core reasoning was that Connecticut does not recognize a cause of action for negligent or reckless entrustment of a motor vehicle, and loss of consortium claims are derivative and thus cannot stand without a viable underlying claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Duncan v. Astrue, a pro se plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging errors in the evaluation of his impairments including mental retardation and other physical and mental conditions. The magistrate judge recommended granting the plaintiff's motion to reverse, but the district court sustained the Commissioner's objection after reviewing overlooked evidence in the record. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, granted the Commissioner's motion to affirm, and upheld the ALJ's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled. It applied the substantial evidence standard, finding the ALJ's five-step sequential evaluation—including steps on severe impairments, listed impairments, residual functional capacity for light work, and availability of other jobs—adequately supported by medical reports and other evidence despite contrary findings also being possible.

healthcare

This case involves plaintiff Debra Odom, who has a brain injury, suing Waterford police officer Gilbert Maffeo, Police Chief Murray Pendleton, and the Town of Waterford over Maffeo's use of a Taser during a 2006 traffic stop for speeding and lane changes. Odom brought multiple claims including negligence, assault and battery, false imprisonment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants, along with indemnification claims against the town. The court denied Maffeo's motion for summary judgment in full, finding disputed facts about whether he properly identified himself, whether Odom's disability affected her compliance, and whether the taser use was justified under Connecticut law. It granted Pendleton and Waterford's motion in part by dismissing the § 1983 and negligent supervision claims against them but denied it in part by allowing the indemnification claims for Maffeo's alleged torts to proceed to trial.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between the New Britain Board of Education and the New Britain Federation of Teachers over class size limits for special education classes specified in their collective bargaining agreement. The Board sought declarations and injunctions to invalidate these limits under the IDEA, related federal and state laws, and the Equal Protection Clause, claiming they conflicted with requirements for individualized education plans. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the Union, finding no evidence that the class size provisions prevented compliance with students' IEPs or federal law, and that the provisions were rationally related to legitimate educational purposes without violating equal protection. The court denied all requested relief and directed the parties to arbitration as per the agreement.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

The case involved a mother suing a Connecticut town, school board, superintendent, principal, and two teachers on behalf of her biracial son, alleging under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that school officials failed to protect the child from peer racial harassment and committed specific discriminatory acts, including directing him to use a brown crayon for a self-portrait and physically grabbing him. After an earlier summary judgment ruling and remand from the Second Circuit on qualified immunity, the district court reconsidered whether the defendants were shielded from the equal protection and substantive due process claims in Counts One, Four, and Seven. The court held that the officials were not entitled to qualified immunity on the equal protection claims because the right to a racially nondiscriminatory school environment was clearly established at the time, but they were entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims because no precedent clearly established that the crayon or grabbing incidents violated the child's rights without evidence of significant injury. As a result, the substantive due process claims were dismissed and the equal protection claims were allowed to proceed to trial.

civil rights

The case involved plaintiff Richard Caires's claims against JP Morgan Chase Bank, as successor to Washington Mutual Bank, for fraud in the inducement, equitable estoppel from foreclosure, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, arising from alleged misrepresentations about the terms of a 2006-2007 construction and renovation mortgage loan on his Greenwich, Connecticut property. Chase moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act required Caires to first exhaust administrative claims procedures with the FDIC as receiver for the failed bank. The court also ruled that the claims were barred by the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine, codified in 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e), which precludes enforcement of unwritten side agreements against the bank or its successors unless they meet specific writing and approval requirements.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Windmill Distributing Company suing its insurer Hartford Fire Insurance Company, alleging breach of the duty to defend in good faith and bad-faith settlement of an underlying personal injury lawsuit arising from a 2005 traffic accident in which Windmill's delivery truck was involved. Hartford had investigated the claim, defended the suit through counsel, and ultimately settled it for $225,000—within Windmill's $250,000 deductible—shortly before trial. The court granted Hartford's motion for summary judgment and denied Windmill's cross-motion, holding that Hartford's decision was reasonable given the plaintiff's strong damages evidence, the uncertainties of trial and an unresolved appeal, and the fact that the settlement avoided exposure beyond the prepaid deductible without subordinating Windmill's interests.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved claims by plaintiffs against defendant Roger D. Lockhart for violating Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with purchases and sales of Host America Corporation stock. The plaintiffs alleged insider trading based on Lockhart's sale of a large portion of his and his family's Host shares shortly after the company issued a press release about a potential Wal-Mart transaction involving its LightMasterPlus product, which later led to trading suspension due to concerns the release was misleading. The court granted Lockhart's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence that he was a temporary insider or had access to material non-public information through any confidential relationship with the company. Lockhart's role was limited to that of a shareholder who had acquired stock through prior corporate transactions, with no involvement in Host's business planning, marketing, or dealings with Wal-Mart, and his conversations with company executives occurred only in his capacity as a shareholder rather than for corporate purposes.

business & regulatory

The case involved Sandhya Desmond suing her former employer, Yale-New Haven Hospital, under the Americans with Disabilities Act after her termination as a physician assistant, alleging discrimination based on her disability. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she did not provide evidence that she could perform the essential functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodation. The court also noted that even if the employer failed to engage in an interactive process, the claim fails without evidence of a feasible accommodation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a product liability and negligence action in which insurance companies OneBeacon and The Hartford, as subrogees, sued Swedish manufacturer Tylo AB to recover over $75,000 paid for damage from a 2006 sauna fire at a Connecticut health club allegedly caused by a Tylo heater. Tylo moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, contending it had no direct sales or sufficient contacts in Connecticut. The court denied the motion, holding that the Connecticut long-arm statute applied because Tylo's products reached the state through a longstanding distributor relationship and that Tylo had minimum contacts with the forum satisfying due process, as its purposeful availment of the U.S. market made jurisdiction reasonable under the five-factor test.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves Genworth Financial Wealth Management suing former employees and their new competing firm for allegedly downloading confidential client data, trade secrets, and proprietary information before departing and then using it to solicit clients. The plaintiff moved for temporary restraints and expedited discovery to stop the defendants from further accessing, disclosing, or misusing the information. The court granted the motion after an evidentiary hearing, issuing specific injunctive orders that prohibit the defendants from contacting Genworth clients with the data, require return of materials from third parties, and bar further disclosure of trade secrets or confidential details learned during employment. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff showed irreparable harm to its business and a likelihood of success on claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and related common-law counts, based on evidence of unauthorized data transfers and post-employment misuse.

business & regulatory

This case involves animal rights protesters arrested during a demonstration at a family-oriented circus promotion event in Hartford, Connecticut. The plaintiffs sued the city and a police sergeant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Connecticut law, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights along with claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the emotional distress claims, finding no evidence that the defendants' conduct was extreme and outrageous or that the plaintiffs suffered severe distress, especially in light of probable cause for the arrests. Summary judgment was denied on the remaining claims, which will proceed to trial.

free speechcivil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

The case involves Bruce and Kathleen Everitt suing the Town of East Windsor, its police chief, captain, and police commission members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The claims asserted that Bruce Everitt, a police officer, was suspended in retaliation for Kathleen Everitt's letter complaining about the department's handling of his injury during an arrest, and that the defendants further retaliated by harassing the plaintiffs after the lawsuit was filed, while also violating rights to intimate association and equal protection. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the equal protection claim and on the post-lawsuit retaliation claim to the extent it sought money damages, but denied summary judgment on the intimate association claim and the primary First Amendment retaliation claim arising from Kathleen Everitt's speech, allowing those to proceed to trial. The court reasoned that the police commission acted as a final policymaker for municipal liability purposes under state law, that evidence supported potential constitutional violations on the surviving claims, and that qualified immunity and other defenses did not warrant full dismissal at this stage.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

The plaintiff, Veronica Pretty, sued Prudential Insurance Company of America and her former employer under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to reinstate long-term disability benefits after Prudential terminated them, claiming her medical condition prevented her from performing her job as an accounts payable clerk. State-law claims were previously dismissed, leaving only the ERISA claims. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion to compel additional discovery. It held that Prudential, as the plan administrator with discretionary authority, reasonably determined based on medical records that the plaintiff could perform seated work duties and thus no longer qualified for benefits under the plan's definition of disability. The decision was not arbitrary and capricious, even accounting for any conflict of interest, because the plaintiff offered no evidence of bias or procedural flaws.

labor & employment

The case involved Becky McClain, a former Pfizer scientist, who sued her employer after her 2005 termination, alleging she was fired for reporting health issues from noxious odors in a lab vent hood under Connecticut's whistleblower statute (§ 31-51m), for exercising free speech on a matter of public concern under § 31-51q, and for willful and wanton misconduct under common law. Pfizer moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence on all claims. The court granted the motion on the common law claim due to the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provision, McClain's failure to meet the substantial certainty requirement for intentional injury, and lack of evidence tying the conduct to corporate responsibility. The court denied the motion on the two statutory claims, finding sufficient evidence to proceed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for the whistleblower claim and to show an adverse employment action following protected speech on the free speech claim.

labor & employmentfree speechtorts & liability

In this case, former company president John Godina sued Resinall Corp. and related entities under ERISA sections governing fiduciary duties, claiming violations related to a deferred executive compensation plan after his employment ended. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining ERISA claims and on their counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing all of Godina's ERISA claims and terminating the non-existent defendant Resinall, Inc., while denying summary judgment on the counterclaims because disputed issues of material fact remained regarding the plan's terms, payments received, and any unjust enrichment. The case will proceed to trial solely on the defendants' counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The plaintiffs, bearing manufacturers, sued Peer Bearing Company for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement, and related Connecticut state law claims, alleging that Peer copied their 1600, 7500, and 7600 Series part number designations and proprietary load ratings from product catalogs. The court granted in part and denied in part Peer's motion for summary judgment. It held that laches barred the trademark claims as to the long-used 1600 Series designations, that the load ratings lacked the originality required for copyright protection because they were primarily factual calculations rather than creative expression, and that certain claims regarding the 7500 and 7600 Series could proceed because genuine issues of material fact remained on secondary meaning, likelihood of confusion, and timeliness.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Robert Spano sued Gengras Motor Cars, Inc., alleging that his termination violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and constituted negligent infliction of emotional distress under Connecticut common law. The court denied summary judgment on the ADEA and FMLA claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether age or Spano's approved medical leave for bladder cancer motivated the termination, based on the timing of performance criticism and the decision to seek a replacement. The court granted summary judgment on the emotional distress claim, holding that Gengras's conduct in pressing for improved wholesale sales performance fell within acceptable employment practices and did not meet the threshold of unreasonableness or exceed socially tolerable boundaries. The ruling rests on undisputed facts about Spano's evaluations, communications around his leave, and the sequence of events.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved Alan DiCara suing his former employer, the Connecticut Rivers Council of the Boy Scouts of America, alleging that his termination and the employer's failure to accommodate his spinal condition violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that the termination interfered with and retaliated against his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on the ADA claims, finding insufficient evidence that DiCara's condition substantially limited a major life activity or that the termination was discriminatory. However, the court denied summary judgment on the FMLA claims, determining that there was evidence suggesting the employer's budgetary explanation for the termination was pretextual, particularly given the timing after DiCara's medical leave and the fact that he was the only employee laid off despite subsequent hiring.

labor & employmentcivil rights