3:21-cv-01486
D. Conn.May 12, 2023Background
- Glass was Security Manager at Bozzuto’s from 2002 until his October 2020 termination after the 2020 Dream Ride charity event.
- Bozzuto’s evidence shows Glass and several security supervisors drank in the event command room and covered a camera; company policy prohibited possession/consumption of alcohol on company time and could warrant termination on first offense.
- Bozzuto’s terminated Glass and six security supervisors (ages ranged from 29 to 66); duties were reassigned to Director of Surveillance Carlos Landrau (age 42).
- Glass alleges age discrimination (ADEA and CFEPA) and points to prior comments by CEO Michael Bozzuto about Glass’s retirement, his replacement by a younger employee, and an allegedly retained younger guard who drank.
- Bozzuto’s moved for summary judgment; Glass sought to reopen discovery and asked the court to defer the motion but did not file an opposition or a Rule 56(d) affidavit showing diligence.
- The court granted summary judgment on the ADEA claim (finding no triable pretext), declined supplemental jurisdiction over the CFEPA claim, and denied Glass’s motion to reopen discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Glass’s termination was age-based in violation of the ADEA | Glass contends comments about retirement, replacement by a younger manager, and a younger guard not fired show pretext | Bozzuto’s contends Glass was fired for violating alcohol policy and concealing it; several younger supervisors were also fired | Court: Held for defendant — Bozzuto’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason is legitimate and Glass’s evidence fails to show age was a but-for cause |
| Whether the alcohol policy applied (work vs. volunteer) | Glass says Dream Ride work was volunteer and policy shouldn’t apply | Bozzuto’s shows Glass prepared during work hours, sought reimbursements, and wore company shirts — employer honestly believed policy applied | Held for defendant — employer’s honestly held belief is a legitimate reason for termination |
| Whether Glass is entitled to more discovery under Rule 56(d) before summary judgment | Glass sought depositions (including Bozzuto) to show pretext and relevance of company practice | Bozzuto’s opposed; court noted Glass had ample discovery time and failed to show diligence or explain how additional discovery would create a triable issue | Denied — Glass did not submit the required Rule 56(d) showing and failed to justify reopening discovery |
| Whether the court should keep the state-law CFEPA claim after ADEA dismissal | Glass seeks relief on state claim in federal court | Bozzuto’s had argued the federal claim disposed of the case | Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the CFEPA claim without prejudice to state adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (plaintiff must show age was "but-for" cause of adverse action)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (court may infer discrimination from falsity of employer’s explanation in proper cases)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc., 944 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2019) (factors for assessing probative value of stray remarks)
- Kolari v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2006) (factors for exercising supplemental jurisdiction)