Callender v. Reflexite Corp.
70 A.3d 1084
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Callender, a Reflexite Films Division employee since 1987, was a machine tool operator and, by 2006, a team leader of three departments.
- In 2006 Reflexite planned internal changes, moved the rigid line to Rochester, and phased out the rigid manufacturing line by year-end; the plaintiff’s position was eliminated.
- Following injuries, Callender received light-duty work during recoveries, with WC proceedings recognizing a recognizable workers’ compensation claim in August 2006, and a June 29, 2006 finding she could perform only light duty.
- At an August 31, 2006 meeting, Reflexite offered severance; Callender rejected it, proposing a path under § 31-290a which Reflexite rejected.
- Reflexite offered medical leave under FMLA rather than its own medical leave policy, which would have provided up to twelve months of leave with benefits; plaintiff was not offered that policy due to work-related injury status.
- Callender alleged multiple discriminatory/retaliatory actions (termination, denial of light-duty work, denial of medical leave and disability benefits, exclusion from early retirement, and severance terms); promissory estoppel was later abandoned on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Casey affidavit should have been struck | Casey affidavit is false and brought in bad faith. | Affidavit not to be struck; any falsity is not fatal since other facts remain uncontested. | Court did not abuse discretion; strike was overbroad and properly denied. |
| Whether the court improperly construed the complaint or failed to consider certain discrimination theories | Court read complaint too narrowly, omitting disability retirement and ranking claims. | Court fully considered disability retirement and declined to review ranking for lack of briefing. | Court did not err in construing the complaint; reviewed disability retirement and limited ranking discussion as appropriate. |
| Whether there were material facts in dispute requiring denial of summary judgment | Discriminatory reasons and pretext evidence create triable issues across multiple acts. | Defendant produced legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and plaintiff failed to show pretext. | Summary judgment affirmed; defendant’s nondiscriminatory reasons upheld and no triable issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., 216 Conn. 40 (1990) (formal burden-shifting framework for § 31-290a claims)
- Chiaia v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 24 Conn. App. 362 (1991) (outline of Ford burden and appellate review)
- Perez-Dickson v. Bridgeport, 304 Conn. 483 (2012) (McDonnell Douglas-like analysis for discrimination proof)
- Weinstock v. Columbia University, 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (burden-shifting and pretext evaluation in discrimination cases)
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (pretext standard after employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons)
- Kopacz v. Day Kimball Hospital of Windham County, Inc., 64 Conn. App. 263 (2001) (summary judgment burden in discrimination cases)
- Hammond v. Bridgeport, 139 Conn. App. 687 (2012) (summary judgment framework in discrimination claims)
- Perri v. Cioffi, 141 Conn. 675 (1954) (necessity of showing affidavit falsity to strike)
- Grasso v. Connecticut Hospice, Inc., 138 Conn. App. 759 (2012) (definition of material facts and standard for summary judgment)