This case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which relator Walter M. Drake alleges false claims by defendants including United Technologies Corporation (UTC) and Norden Systems. The court addresses the relator's motion for reconsideration of the prior dismissal of claims under former 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7) and (2) against UTC, as well as a motion to amend the complaint to add a claim under the recodified 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B). The court grants reconsideration, permitting the relator to proceed with the claim under the recodified provision, and denies the motion to amend as moot due to the statutory recodification aligning with the existing allegations.
This case involves claims by Verna Kearney, an African-American female police officer, that the City of Bridgeport Police Department and her supervisors discriminated against her on the basis of race, color, and gender by reassigning her from a prestigious director position in the Seniors’ Program to less desirable roles like School Resource Officer and patrol, and by creating a hostile work environment in retaliation for her complaints about discrimination. She brought claims under Title VII, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. On reconsideration of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court decided that the hostile work environment claims under Title VII and CFEPA should not be dismissed. The core reasoning was that, despite skepticism about whether the alleged conduct met the pervasiveness requirement, the liberal pleading standards from Twombly allow the bare allegations to potentially state a valid claim, leaving the plaintiff to her proof.
In this case, plaintiff Alan Zilinski sued his employer Earth Tech alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, Equal Pay Act, and Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, along with state tort claims for emotional distress, based on events including his 2004 termination and reinstatement, a suspension, medical leave, and later reassignment to a lower-paying position after returning from leave with work restrictions. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all federal claims. It applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and found that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing that the employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons—such as compliance with collective bargaining procedures, medical restrictions, and filling the only available position upon return—were pretextual. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.
This case involves former Advest account executives who participated in a nonqualified defined benefit plan that required ten years of service for vesting and provided for forfeiture of benefits upon earlier termination, except in limited circumstances. Plaintiffs alleged that the plan violated ERISA's minimum vesting standards under 29 U.S.C. § 1053 and that defendants failed to furnish a required summary plan description, seeking relief under ERISA sections 502(a)(1)(B), (a)(2), and (a)(3). The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the fiduciary duty claims under sections 502(a)(2) and (a)(3), finding them barred by the statute of limitations or otherwise unsupported, but denied summary judgment on the section 502(a)(1)(B) claim for plan benefits. The court denied the motion for class certification without prejudice, directing plaintiffs to amend their complaint to focus on the remaining claim and to renew the certification motion addressing whether the requested relief fits Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3).
This case involved claims by a minor plaintiff and his mother against Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Kinko's for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, recklessness, and negligent infliction of emotional distress after a former employee with a disclosed prior felony conviction for conduct equivalent to statutory rape sexually abused the child during off-duty computer repair visits at the family home arranged through a chance meeting at the store. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the employer could not reasonably foresee that hiring the employee for a production operator role without duties involving intimate public contact or home visits would enable access to the family and the abuse, that the relevant interactions were extrinsic to employment duties, and that the company's goodwill, reputation, telephone, or uniform did not qualify as chattels directly causing the harm under tort principles governing off-duty employee conduct.
The case involved a U.S. citizen plaintiff challenging the seizure and non-return of his wife's Chinese passport and U.S. green card by ICE at JFK airport in 2005, which prevented her from returning to the United States after travel to China. The plaintiff sought judicial orders compelling the return or issuance of new travel documents, an explanation for the seizure, and damages for costs incurred in obtaining substitutes. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims belonging to his wife and had not exhausted required administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act before filing suit.