Kovaco v. Rockbestos-Surprenant Cable Corp.
979 F. Supp. 2d 252
D. Conn.2013Background
- Kovaco was hired in 2005 as a maintenance mechanic; he reported restrictions in December 2009 (limited walking, no stair climbing) and requested use of an electric cart as an accommodation.
- Defendant had three carts: one effectively assigned to DeGreenia (disabled), one used/kept by Torres, and one shared among other mechanics. Kovaco contends he was not afforded exclusive or reliable access.
- Kovaco took FMLA leave (Jan 6–11, 2010) and was restored to his position.
- On March 19–20, 2010 a shared cart was lockout-tagged and moved to the boiler room. Kovaco entered the room, removed the tag, and used the cart; battery was later found drained and cart in a remote area. He admitted the conduct and was suspended, investigated, and terminated on March 29, 2010.
- The SSA later found Kovaco disabled as of March 24, 2010 and limited to sedentary work. Kovaco alleges discrimination (ADA, ADEA, Title VII), failure to accommodate, retaliation (including for FMLA and complaints about ethnic harassment), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conversion/theft of tools.
- Court grants summary judgment in part and denies in part: discrimination, FMLA claims, and IIED dismissed; retaliation (Title VII/ADA/ADEA/CFEPA), reasonable accommodation, and theft/conversion claims survive; back/forward pay limited by SSA disability finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualification for discrimination/ADA/ADEA/CFEPA claims | Kovaco could perform essential functions with accommodation (cart); SSA disability not dispositive | SSA found Kovaco unable to perform mechanic duties as of March 24, 2010; not qualified | Court: Not qualified for ADA and age/national-origin claims (summary judgment for defendant) because SSA finding and job demands showed inability to perform essential functions despite a cart |
| Retaliation (Title VII, ADA, ADEA, C.G.S. §46a-60(a)(4)) | Termination was retaliation for complaints about co-worker harassment and FMLA leave | Termination based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: Kovaco admitted cutting OSHA lockout tag and using cart | Court: Denied summary judgment — genuine disputes (e.g., whether cart was unusable, hidden, or accessible with key) create triable issue of pretext and causation; retaliation claims survive |
| Reasonable accommodation (ADA) | Employer failed to provide effective accommodation (exclusive access/modification) though Kovaco requested cart | Employer permitted cart use as needed since Dec 2009 — accommodation provided | Court: Denied summary judgment — factual disputes whether accommodation was meaningful (access, exclusive use, task modification) preclude judgment for defendant |
| FMLA interference/retaliation | Termination interfered with or retaliated for taking FMLA leave | Kovaco was granted FMLA leave and reinstated; termination remote in time and he was not qualified at firing | Court: FMLA interference and FMLA retaliation dismissed (summary judgment for defendant) — no denial of benefits and Kovaco not qualified at firing |
| Back and front pay remedy | Kovaco seeks lost earnings | Defendant relies on SSA disability finding making him unable to work during relevant period | Court: Plaintiff ineligible for back/forward pay for periods when SSA found him unable to work due to disability |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Repeated ethnic slurs, drawings, and employer’s inadequate response caused severe distress | Conduct was offensive but not extreme/outrageous as legal standard requires | Court: IIED claim dismissed (summary judgment for defendant) |
| Statutory theft and conversion of tools | Tools were taken/tampered with when Kovaco retrieved them; employer liable under respondeat superior if employees acted in scope | Defendant denies it assumed possession/ownership or intentional taking | Court: Denied summary judgment — factual dispute whether employees misappropriated tools supports conversion/theft claims to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (assessment of genuine issues and inferences on summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (ADA prima facie elements)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (retaliation McDonnell Douglas analysis)
- Mitchell v. Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 1 (ADA accommodation vs. SSA disability)
- Bucalo v. Shelter Island Union Free Sch. Dist., 691 F.3d 119 (discrimination proof framework)