985 F. Supp. 2d 240
D. Conn.2013Background
- Hopkins sued the Funds (New England Health Care Employees Welfare Fund and New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund) alleging Title VII, ADEA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and CFEPA claims (Count 1) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 2).
- Hopkins, employed 1989–2010 as Assistant Director of operations, returned from breast cancer leave in 2009; Pane, her supervisor, repeatedly questioned retirement and allegedly referred to Hopkins as “chemo brain.”
- Tardif was hired January 11, 2010 as Hopkins’s replacement; Hopkins was terminated June 18, 2010 after a May 24 termination letter identifying nine concerns and a May 28 hearing that Hopkins did not attend.
- Following investigations and a Board meeting where a lawyer was contacted regarding potential wrongful termination, Hopkins was placed on administrative leave and later terminated; the Funds conducted an audit afterward showing claim-processing errors.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the Funds’ motion for summary judgment across the asserted claims, with Title VII claims dismissed, Rehabilitation Act claims dismissed for lack of federal funding, ADA claims partially retained, ADEA and CFEPA age claims retained, and damages mitigation issues addressed.
- The court emphasizes that credibility determinations and weighing of evidence are inappropriate at the summary-judgment stage for disputed factual issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA discrimination and retaliation claims | Hopkins argues disability discrimination and retaliatory termination. | Funds contend legitimate non-discriminatory reasons; no pretext shown. | ADA discrimination and retaliation survive in part. |
| ADEA discrimination and retaliation claims | Hopkins alleges age-based termination with pretext evidence. | Funds offer legitimate reasons; age was not the but-for cause. | ADEA discrimination and retaliation survive in part. |
| Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims | Hopkins alleges prohibited discrimination and retaliation for protected activity. | No evidence of race, color, religion, sex, or retaliation relevant to Title VII. | Summary judgment granted for title VII discrimination and retaliation (claims dismissed). |
| Rehabilitation Act claim | Disability and termination connected via Funds’ actions. | No evidence Funds received federal financial assistance. | Summary judgment granted for Rehabilitation Act claim (dismissed). |
| CFEPA claims (discrimination and retaliation) | CFEPA mirrors ADA/ADEA analyses; disability-based claims persist. | CFEPA claims analyzed as parallel to ADA/Title VII; defense prevails only on specific elements. | CFEPA discrimination and retaliation claims survive to extent aligned with ADA/ADEA conclusions. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (prima facie framework; burden shifts in discrimination cases)
- Cifra v. G.E. Co., 252 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2001) (retaliation standard under Title VII)
- Greenway v. Buffalo Hilton Hotel, 143 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1998) (low burden to make prima facie case; burden on employer to show legitimate reason)
- Weixel v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 287 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2002) (causal connection; protected activity and adverse action must be linked)
- Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 172 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 1999) (minimal prima facie burden; standard for age claims)