Janet Bond Arterton

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.

property

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

labor & employment

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.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves the United States seeking summary judgment against Beth Freimour under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act to recover the value of payments she received as reimbursement for legal fees incurred during the criminal investigation and trials of Walter Forbes, her former employer, which the government claims were constructively and intentionally fraudulent transfers. The court addressed Freimour's statute of limitations defenses, holding that the intentional fraudulent transfer claims were equitably tolled until the January 17, 2007 restitution order and thus timely when the government moved to add her as a defendant on December 1, 2008, and that the limitations period for both intentional and constructive claims stopped running on that amendment date. The opinion examines the source of the reimbursements (personal checks from Forbes), the timing of the transfers relative to Forbes's known liabilities from shareholder suits and government investigations, and the requirements for establishing insolvency and insider status under the FDCPA, while noting that certain pre-2002 constructive claims are time-barred.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Forbes, the United States sought to enforce a multi-billion-dollar restitution order against Walter Forbes, imposed after his criminal conviction for accounting fraud at Cendant, by voiding his 2002 transfers of interests in various FG investment entities to defendant Frank Gallagi for nominal consideration of $1. The transfers occurred after Forbes incurred the restitution debt and were claimed to be for tax-loss purposes. On the United States' motion for summary judgment under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, the court found no genuine dispute that the transfers constituted constructive fraudulent conveyances because they were made for less than reasonably equivalent value while Forbes was insolvent due to the debt. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the constructive-fraud count, voiding the transfers and restoring the assets to Forbes, but denied summary judgment on the actual-fraud count because Forbes's intent presented a triable issue.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns a student expelled from Miss Porter's School, a private Connecticut girls' high school, after incidents involving school rules on substance use and academic integrity; she sued the school and its head through her parents for breach of express and implied contract based on the student handbook, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty, seeking damages plus declaratory and injunctive relief including issuance of a diploma. The district court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, analyzing whether the handbook provisions created specific enforceable contractual obligations, whether the tort claims were viable or amounted to non-cognizable educational malpractice, and the scope of fiduciary duties in the private school context under Connecticut precedent such as Gupta and Doe v. Yale.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved charges against Douglas Perlitz under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(b) and (c) for traveling from the United States to Haiti to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minors. Perlitz moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing in part that venue in Connecticut was improper under the Constitution. The court dismissed the indictment solely on venue grounds, holding that the indictment alleged only preparatory, non-criminal acts in Connecticut such as residence and travel arrangements, while the essential conduct elements of the offenses occurred elsewhere. The court reasoned that the Constitution's venue provisions, including Article III and the Sixth Amendment, require prosecution in the state where the crimes were committed, and preparatory acts do not satisfy this requirement even under a continuing-offense analysis. The dismissal was without prejudice to re-indictment in a proper district.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns a business dispute between Imaginative Research Associates (IRA), a company focused on benzoyl peroxide skin care products, and its former founder and partner Jose Ramirez, along with his new company, after Ramirez departed in 2000. IRA alleged that Ramirez and his LLC breached confidentiality agreements, misused IRA's confidential information and trade secrets, and violated related contractual, common-law, and statutory duties, while Defendants asserted counterclaims under the same contracts, common law, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment following discovery, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The core reasoning involved interpreting the August 2000 separation agreements (including stock redemption, consulting, and confidentiality provisions), assessing whether claims were preempted by trade secret law, and evaluating the sufficiency of evidence on the surviving claims and counterclaims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Dorlette, the defendant, a convicted felon, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) for possessing a revolver and moved to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure following a police encounter on December 24, 2008. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the motion to suppress. The court reasoned that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the initial Terry stop of the defendant and his companions, as their presence near a reported incident and nervous demeanor did not meet the required standard. The court further held that the subsequent frisk and seizure were unconstitutional because there were no specific facts indicating the men were armed and dangerous, rendering the evidence inadmissible.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a former financial advisor's claims against his employer under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) alleging improper reemployment after military leave and constructive discharge, along with related state-law claims. A jury found the employer liable, and the court previously awarded damages and equitable relief. In this ruling on post-trial motions, the court evaluated the employer's requests for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial by applying standards that require a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the verdict and that erroneous jury instructions be prejudicial to warrant relief. The court also addressed the plaintiff's application for attorney fees and costs, as well as calculation of prejudgment interest, reviewing evidence of comparable position, commission opportunities, and billing records under applicable legal frameworks.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Pateley Associates entities and Pitney Bowes, Inc. (PBI) over PBI's obligations under a 1978 net lease agreement for the Barry Place property in Stamford, Connecticut, which PBI had owned and occupied before conveying an estate for years to the plaintiffs while leasing it back. The plaintiffs sought defense and indemnification from PBI in a 2006 CERCLA lawsuit brought by the adjacent Innis Arden Golf Club alleging PCB and other contamination from the property, where PBI had allegedly generated and stored hazardous wastes during its long-term occupancy. The court denied PBI's motion to dismiss the nine-count complaint and granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, finding that the lease's indemnification provisions required PBI to defend the plaintiffs and that the LLC's mortgage agreement did not bar such obligations. The reasoning centered on the plain terms of the lease and related agreements, the absence of any bad faith or prohibited conduct by the plaintiffs, and PBI's prior partial performance in defending the action before withdrawing.

business & regulatoryenvironmentproperty

The case involves a pro se lawsuit by Joseph Montanez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Milford and several police officers, claiming that officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by making a warrantless entry into his home on April 9, 2006, to accompany a DCF caseworker conducting a child welfare check after drugs and guns were found there the previous day. The court granted summary judgment to the City, Police Chief Mello, and Officers Macharelli and Kiely due to lack of involvement or absence of a municipal policy, but denied summary judgment to Sergeant Sharoh and Officer McCormack. The court sua sponte granted summary judgment on liability to Montanez against Sharoh and McCormack, finding the entry unconstitutional because there was no warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances, and qualified immunity did not shield the officers as the law was clearly established.

civil rightscriminal lawfamily lawprocedure

Plaintiff Eugene Collins, an African-American man over age 50, sued his former employers at Connecticut Job Corps alleging that he was demoted from facilities manager due to his age and race in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, and the CFEPA, and then terminated in retaliation for his internal and external complaints of discrimination. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the demotion and discharge were based on legitimate performance issues. The court denied the motion, finding that the record, viewed in the light most favorable to Collins, raised genuine issues of material fact including whether he received the promised training and improvement opportunities afforded to younger white comparators, whether the employer followed its own policies, and whether the sequence of reprimands and termination was linked to his protected complaints rather than nondiscriminatory reasons.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Pedro Roque suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the wrongful death of his son Edward, an inmate at a federal prison, alleging negligence by prison officials in failing to protect him from assault and provide medical care. The government moved to dismiss the claims as barred by the two-year statute of limitations under the FTCA. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the claims did not accrue until January 2008 when the plaintiff, through diligent FOIA requests, discovered the facts about the prison's actions and omissions that led to his son's death in September 2005.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a claim for life insurance benefits under an ERISA-governed group accident policy after the insured died in a head-on collision with a dump truck while driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.26 to 0.27 percent. The insurer denied the claim on the grounds that the death did not result from a covered accident because the collision was foreseeable given the known hazards of drunk driving and alternatively that it constituted an intentionally self-inflicted injury. On cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record under de novo review, the court denied the insurer's motion, granted the beneficiary's motion in part by ordering remand to the insurer for further consideration with specific instructions, and declined to award benefits or attorney's fees.

labor & employmentprocedure

Cenveo, Inc. sued its former Director of Income Taxes, Sheila Rao, alleging she violated company policies by using its computer system to access and transmit confidential employee compensation data and a defamatory letter to external parties, including the Hillary Clinton campaign; the claims included libel, breach of fiduciary duty and loyalty, and a violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the CFAA claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The core reasoning was that Rao had been authorized to access the company's computers as part of her job, and her subsequent improper use of that access for personal or political purposes did not constitute access "without authorization" or exceeding authorized access under the CFAA, consistent with precedents requiring a lack of initial permission rather than misuse alone.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorycriminal law

Mary Pippin sued the Town of Vernon under Title VII, alleging gender discrimination in the town's decision not to promote her from acting director to permanent director of the data processing department after the prior director's death. The town instead conducted an open competitive examination with interviews by a panel and selected another candidate. The court granted the town's motion for summary judgment. It held that employers may lawfully rely on subjective criteria such as interview impressions, provided their explanations are clear and specific, and found no evidence that the town's rationale was pretextual or that Pippin's credentials were demonstrably superior.

labor & employmentcivil rights