Green v. Cellco Partnership
218 F. Supp. 3d 157
| D. Conn. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff was a call-center customer service representative who suffered a workplace back injury on February 19, 2014, went on medical/FMLA leave, and was terminated while still on leave on April 25, 2014.
- Employer had criticized plaintiff’s performance for too many “disconnects,” placed him on a performance-improvement plan in 2013, and conducted an audit (Jan 15–Feb 15, 2014) showing eight disconnects.
- Plaintiff has a long history of back problems, prior surgeries, and a spinal stimulator; post-injury treating physicians described him as unable to work and later cleared him for light duty.
- Supervisor Ottman repeatedly warned plaintiff that employees who took sick leave could be fired and discouraged complaints about that stance; she communicated with plaintiff frequently while he was on leave.
- Employer claims termination was due to an uncommunicated “five-disconnect” rule; plaintiff disputes the rule’s existence, documentation, and consistent application and raises software-issue explanations for disconnects.
- Procedural posture: defendant moved for summary judgment on ADA, CFEPA, FMLA, and workers’ compensation–retaliation claims; court granted summary judgment on two counts (interference under FMLA and workers’ compensation retaliation) and denied summary judgment on the remaining counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff was "disabled" under ADA/CFEPA | Plaintiff’s chronic back pain and post-injury medical notes show an impairment that substantially limits major life activities and is chronic under state law | Employer argues plaintiff was not disabled because he worked before injury and the impairment wasn’t shown to be substantially limiting or chronic | Genuine issue of fact exists; jury could find plaintiff disabled under ADA and CFEPA |
| Whether plaintiff was qualified with reasonable accommodation (leave) | Leave for a finite, reasonable period would have enabled plaintiff to perform essential functions; he sought leave and had intermittent return attempts and medical clearance for light duty | Employer contends ADA does not require indefinite leave and asserts concern over indefinite leave length justified termination | Court: leave can be a reasonable accommodation; disputed facts about prognosis and length of leave preclude summary judgment for employer |
| Whether termination was because of disability/leave (discrimination/retaliation) | Supervisor’s repeated warnings that employees taking leave could be fired and contemporaneous comments support discriminatory/retaliatory motive | Employer says termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason—excessive disconnects under a five-disconnect rule known and applied before injury | Court finds triable issues: rule was unwritten, inconsistently applied, and supervisor’s statements permit inference termination was disability/leave-related; summary judgment denied |
| Whether termination violated Connecticut workers’ compensation anti-retaliation statute | Plaintiff claimed termination was retaliatory for exercising workers’ compensation rights | Employer notes it approved the workers’ compensation claim and plaintiff cannot recall discussing workers’ comp with employer | Court grants summary judgment for employer on this claim; insufficient evidence linking termination to workers’ compensation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (U.S. 2014) (summary judgment standard—view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Zann Kwan v. Andalex Group LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (jury issue exists where reasonable jury could decide for nonmoving party)
- Cortes v. MTA New York City Transit, 802 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2015) (McDonnell Douglas framework for ADA/CFEPA claims)
- McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (application of McDonnell Douglas to disability claims)
- Henry v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc., 616 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2010) (proof of pretext requires showing employer’s reason was false and discriminatory motive was causal)
- Graves v. Finch Pruyn & Co., 457 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2006) (reasonable leave can be a required accommodation under ADA)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) (ADA does not require employers to hold positions open indefinitely)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prod. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (elements of failure-to-accommodate claim)