Killin v. Buttercup CT, LLC, 3:24-cv-01613

Claire Killin, a Caucasian, British national, was employed at a Dunkin’ franchise in East Lyme, CT, owned by Buttercup CT, LLC and managed by Thomas, Serpa, and Calvo.
Killin alleges she suffered discrimination (sex, race, national origin), a hostile work environment, and retaliation during her employment, including harassment by coworkers and a former employee, Nicholson, and mishandling of her personal information by Calvo.
Plaintiff was terminated following several disciplinary write-ups, which she contends were discriminatory and retaliatory after she reported misconduct.
After her termination, Killin experienced continued harassment and mental health struggles, allegedly resulting in her delayed filing of a discrimination charge (filed 301 days post-termination, one day late).
Plaintiff filed administrative complaints and then this federal lawsuit; Defendants moved to dismiss claims as untimely or insufficient.
The Court issued a ruling on Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, analyzing timeliness, sufficiency of discrimination and retaliation claims, and the viability of her contract/good faith claims under Connecticut law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether late-filed Title VII & CFEPA claims (1-day) should be equitably tolled	Killin’s mental incapacity and harassment justified a minor late filing	Ignorance/mental strain not extraordinary; not diligent; must dismiss	Denied dismissal; factual issues on tolling warrant discovery
Whether § 1981 supports claims for race discrimination/hostile work environment	Suffered adverse actions due to white race; hostile environment	No specific facts or but-for connection to race	Dismissed; insufficient factual showing for race or hostile environment
Whether § 1981 supports retaliation claim	Complaints about discrimination led to worse treatment/termination	No protected activity or causal link sufficiently alleged	Denied dismissal on retaliation claim; minimal claim stated
Whether common-law good faith/fair dealing claim survives post-termination	Terminated for reporting public safety/health violations, privacy breach	No employment contract alleged and statutory remedies already available	Dismissed; no valid contract or public policy violation, and remedies exist

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for plausibility in pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must allege more than labels/conclusions for relief)
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273 (white employees may assert § 1981 claims)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (standard for hostile work environment claims)
Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (adverse employment action definition)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (adverse action and pleading standards for discrimination)
Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (pleading standards for discrimination and retaliation)
Patterson v. County of Oneida, N.Y., 375 F.3d 206 (intentional discrimination requirements § 1981)