Warren William Eginton

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.

procedurefederal power

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

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).

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

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.

immigration

The case involved plaintiff Lynn Kucharski suing her former employer, Cort Furniture Rental, alleging that her termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act due to pregnancy discrimination, as well as disability claims under the ADA and CFEPA. In an earlier ruling, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the disability claims but denied it on the pregnancy discrimination claims. On reconsideration, the court granted the defendant's motion and entered summary judgment in its favor on the pregnancy claims under both mixed-motive and McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analyses. The core reasoning was that the employer presented evidence of uniformly applying its leave policy to terminate any employees, including males, who could not return after exhausting leave, and the plaintiff failed to show this justification was pretextual or that non-pregnant employees received exceptions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a wrongful death claim arising from a car accident where the plaintiff's decedent collided with the rear of a tractor-trailer owned by Leonard Transportation Corp. and maintained by Eugene Badger. The plaintiff alleged negligence in the repair and maintenance of the trailer's ICC bumper, which failed to prevent the collision's severity, asserting claims against Badger for negligence and against Leonard for vicarious negligence, negligent hiring, and supervision. The defendants moved for summary judgment solely on the ground that they owed no duty of care. The court denied the motion, holding that a duty exists because harm from improper maintenance was foreseeable to an ordinary person in the defendants' position and because truck operators are best positioned to minimize such risks through proper repairs under negligence principles. The motion to strike was denied as moot.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved two LLCs that owned property in Sharon, Connecticut, and sought a special exception from the town's zoning regulations to build a multi-dwelling complex; they sued the town, planning and zoning commission members, and private opponents, alleging interference with the application process that violated their Fifth Amendment rights, Connecticut statutes, and common-law torts including tortious interference with business relations and civil conspiracy. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court denied the motion by defendant Clow, granted the motion by defendant Fish, and granted in part and denied in part the motion by the town and remaining commission defendants, ordering the plaintiffs to amend by dismissing multiple counts including the federal constitutional and certain statutory claims. Core reasoning focused on whether the complaint sufficiently alleged improper conduct by commission members (such as failing to maintain neutrality after recusal or privately discussing the application) to support the tortious interference claims under Connecticut law, while finding other claims deficient.

civil rightspropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff Andrew Matthews, a Connecticut State Police sergeant and former Internal Affairs officer, who alleged that defendants including Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and various police officials retaliated against him for whistleblowing on misconduct within the police force, violating his First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted Blumenthal's motion to dismiss, finding that state law imposes no specific duty on the Attorney General to release investigative reports within a particular timeframe, thus no cognizable claim for delay in publication. The court denied the motions to dismiss by the other defendants, as well as certain other grounds for dismissal that were moot or satisfied. The reasoning centered on the lack of an affirmative legal duty for Blumenthal under the relevant statute and the acceptance of well-pleaded allegations as true for the remaining claims.

free speechcivil rights

This case arose from plaintiff Angela Martel's federal and state constitutional claims against the Town of South Windsor and Detective Richard Watrous, alleging violations of her Fourth Amendment rights stemming from her arrest for burglary, along with common-law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution. After a jury acquitted Martel, she challenged the arrest warrant application as lacking probable cause due to omitted exculpatory details about witness statements, nicknames, and address records. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that Watrous was entitled to qualified immunity because any mistakes in the investigation and warrant affidavit were objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. The court also granted the plaintiff's motion to strike and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The core reasoning focused on the qualified immunity doctrine protecting reasonable officer errors in probable cause determinations.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a high school senior, E.K., who sued the Stamford Board of Education under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after being expelled for 90 days based on a February 2007 incident in which he allegedly left racist and threatening voicemail messages for a classmate off school grounds, along with separate on-campus altercations. The plaintiff argued that the expulsion violated due process because the hearing relied on hearsay evidence and that Connecticut General Statutes section 10-233d was unconstitutionally vague as applied to off-campus conduct. The court granted summary judgment to the Board, finding that the student received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard at the expulsion hearing, that the statute as amended provided fair notice that threatening messages to a classmate could qualify as seriously disruptive of the educational process, and that no genuine issues of material fact existed on the constitutional claims.

civil rightsprocedure

Plaintiff Linda Magnello sued TJX Companies alleging age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Massachusetts law, claiming she was not hired for buyer positions and an entry-level training program due to her age through both disparate treatment and disparate impact. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the disparate impact claim because the plaintiff provided no statistical evidence or causal link between any employment practice and a disproportionate effect on applicants over 40. It also granted summary judgment on most disparate treatment claims for lack of sufficient evidence but denied summary judgment on the disparate treatment claims arising from her applications to the PASE program and referrals to A.J. Wright and Bob’s Stores divisions. The decision rested on the absence of a prima facie case for disparate impact and on the need for further factual development on the surviving disparate treatment allegations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved plaintiff Jerome Baldyga, a former employee in the City of New Britain's Public Works Department, who sued the city and his supervisor for discriminating against him on the basis of disability and perceived disability, retaliating against him for filing complaints, and violating his rights under the Equal Protection Clause, First Amendment, Due Process Clause, and related state statutes. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff could not demonstrate the defendants' proffered legitimate reasons for his suspensions, probation, and termination were pretextual, and he failed to establish a protected property interest in continued employment as an at-will employee.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a white male teacher in his fifties who sued the Board of Education of the City of Bridgeport, alleging age, gender, race, and color discrimination under the ADEA, Title VII, and Connecticut law after he was not selected for any of five assistant principal vacancies despite meeting the initial interview threshold score of 3.0. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to show discriminatory intent or pretext. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained because the first-round interview scores functioned only as a gatekeeping mechanism to advance candidates rather than as a comparative evaluation, the employer had not articulated clear and specific reasons for rejecting the plaintiff, and the selected candidates were predominantly younger women of varying races.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case is a collateral challenge by a U.S. citizen minor plaintiff seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the removal of her non-citizen father from the United States, based on claims that the removal proceedings violated her due process, equal protection, and other constitutional rights by failing to consider her interests. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) channels all questions of law or fact arising from removal actions exclusively into judicial review of final removal orders, barring district court collateral attacks, and the plaintiff's claims were not independent of the removal proceedings.

immigrationcivil rightsfederal power

This case involved plaintiff Alberta Gibbs, who worked as an administrative assistant for the City of New Haven's Commission on Equal Opportunities, claiming that her supervisor Nichole Jefferson and the city discriminated and retaliated against her based on age and disability by assigning additional duties, isolating her from staff, and making derogatory comments after she objected to the new responsibilities and filed a complaint. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the federal claims under the ADEA and Title VII, as well as related state claims under CFEPA. The court granted summary judgment, holding that there was no evidence of an adverse employment action or discrimination on a protected basis sufficient to support the claims, that Title VII does not permit suits against individual supervisors, and that the remaining state claims should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Murray v. Carroll, plaintiff Robert Murray, an elected Business Manager/Financial Secretary of IBEW Local Union 35, was removed from office by the International Vice President after pleading guilty to DUI and receiving a prison sentence that would prevent him from performing his duties. Murray sued the union and its vice president, alleging that the removal breached the IBEW Constitution and violated the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the breach-of-constitution claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the International President’s interpretation of the constitution—allowing removal under Article IV, Section 3(j) without the notice-and-hearing procedures of Article XXV—was reasonable because both provisions expressly state they do not conflict, and the plaintiff presented no evidence of bad faith by the decision-makers.

labor & employment

This case involved plaintiff Mehmet Yilmaz Ceken, who filed suit against federal officials including the Secretary of Homeland Security and USCIS directors after his I-485 application for adjustment to permanent resident status, submitted in April 2003, remained unadjudicated for years due to pending FBI name checks. Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus and other relief under the Mandamus Act, APA, and related statutes to compel adjudication of his and his wife's applications. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the INA and for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motions to dismiss, holding that it had jurisdiction and that the five-year delay could constitute unreasonable agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 555(b), as the government offered only a generic explanation without specifics. The court ordered defendants to adjudicate the applications within 60 days or provide a satisfactory explanation, rendering the plaintiff's summary judgment motion moot.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

The case involved allegations by Modis, Inc. that its former employee Trisha Bardelli misappropriated confidential trade secret information from its database while still employed and used it to benefit her new employer, Edge Technology Services, in violation of her employment agreement's restrictive covenants. Modis asserted multiple claims against Bardelli, including violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of contract, breach of duty of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and various tort claims, plus a tortious interference claim against Edge, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the CFAA claim for failure to allege the required statutory elements but denied dismissal of all remaining claims. The ruling applied the federal pleading standard, accepting the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true and finding them sufficient to state plausible causes of action under state law for the non-CFAA counts.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability