In this case, plaintiffs CTO Associates and ESJ sued defendants Conopco and Unilever for breach of warranty, lease agreements, and related claims arising from a 1983 sale-leaseback of a Connecticut building, alleging that defendants were obligated to continue providing wastewater treatment, fire suppression, and parking as appurtenances after the sublease expired. Defendants counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that no such ongoing obligation existed. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted defendants', ruling that the services were not appurtenances because the property could be independently operated using municipal alternatives for wastewater, water, and parking. The core reasoning examined the deeds, ground lease, and sublease terms, finding that the services were conveniences rather than necessary incidents to the property and that defendants had made no alterations during the sublease term that would trigger continued obligations.
Roderick Buotote sued Illinois Tool Works under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act after his layoff in 2009, claiming his back impairment from prior injuries constituted a disability that motivated his termination. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on all counts. It held that Buotote did not qualify as disabled under the ADA because his limitations on activities such as prolonged sitting, standing, or walking were not substantial, and the reduction in force was driven by documented economic decline rather than discriminatory intent, with no evidence of pretext shown.
In this case, former pharmaceutical sales representatives sued Schering Corporation, alleging that the company misclassified them as exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court had previously denied summary judgment on the outside sales exemption, a ruling affirmed by the Second Circuit. Addressing the administrative exemption, the court denied Schering's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' motion. The decision rested on findings that the representatives' duties involved delivering pre-approved messages and following company-set strategies without exercising discretion or independent judgment on matters of significance.
In Peterson v. Windham Community Memorial Hospital, the plaintiff, a former longtime employee, sued the hospital under ERISA alleging that changes to the retiree health insurance plan breached promises of lifetime benefits (supporting claims of estoppel and breach of contract) and that the hospital violated fiduciary duties by providing inaccurate benefit information. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all counts. The court reasoned that plan documents explicitly reserved Windham's right to modify or terminate benefits, no written language created a promise to vest lifetime coverage, oral assurances were insufficient, and the plaintiff did not qualify as a plan participant for certain statutory remedies after retiring.
In this diversity case, plaintiff Clarice Collins, a student over age 40 at the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic Medicine, alleged that faculty treated her less favorably than younger students in matters such as reviewing test results and retaking exams, claiming violations of Connecticut anti-discrimination statutes including Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46a-58(a), 46a-60(a), 46a-63, and 46a-64. The University moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion, holding that § 46a-58(a) does not prohibit age discrimination, § 46a-60(a) applies only to employment practices and not to students, and §§ 46a-63 and 46a-64 neither provide a private right of action nor apply here given the failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the University's status. The court further noted that Collins did not dispute the statutory interpretations or allege facts supporting a public accommodation claim.
The case involves two employees, Tania and Sabrina Corfey, suing their employer Rainbow Diner of Danbury and its individual owners for sexual harassment under Title VII and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, as well as retaliation under those same laws. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the retaliation claims against the diner and on all claims against the individual defendants. The court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims against the diner and the state-law retaliation claim against the owners, concluding that evidence of section reassignments and other actions following complaints created triable issues under the McDonnell Douglas framework, but granted summary judgment on the federal claims against the individuals because Title VII does not permit suits against individuals.
