Phadnis v. Great Expression Dental Centers of Connecticut, P.C.
153 A.3d 687
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Phadnis, a dentist, worked for Great Expression Dental from Dec 2011 until termination on Aug 16, 2012; she informed employer of pregnancy and X‑ray restriction and suffered morning sickness causing frequent tardiness.
- Employer approved an adjusted start time and a requested transfer to another office to cover tardiness; chronic tardiness persisted.
- Employer cited chronic tardiness, patient/staff complaints, and unprofessional interactions as reasons for termination.
- Phadnis sued under CFEPA for pregnancy discrimination (including failure to transfer and failure to provide leave), and retaliation (for medical restriction and for complaints about age discrimination), and asserted breach of contract/implied contract and breach of covenant of good faith.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment on all counts; court reviewed record (depositions, e‑mails) and applied McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting framework.
- Court granted summary judgment on all counts: plaintiff failed to establish prima facie discrimination/retaliation and her contract claims were barred by a six‑month limitations provision she signed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy discrimination under §46a‑60 (termination) | Termination was pretext for discrimination because tardiness resulted from pregnancy/morning sickness and timing shows animus | Tardiness was longstanding, documented, and nondiscriminatory reason for termination; no evidence similarly situated nonpregnant employees were treated better | Summary judgment for defendant — Plaintiff failed to show circumstances giving rise to inference of discrimination or pretext |
| Failure to transfer / failure to accommodate under §46a‑60(7)(E) | Transfer request (to avoid being late/ill on commute) should have been accommodated | Transfer was approved; request was for coverage convenience, not because continued employment posed risk to mother/fetus; transfer would not eliminate commute nausea | Summary judgment for defendant — statutory transfer protection not implicated and employer did attempt transfer |
| Retaliation for requesting medical restrictions (§46a‑60(4)) | Providing medical restrictions (X‑ray restriction) was protected activity and termination was retaliatory | CFEPA §46a‑60(4) does not extend to pregnancy accommodations; plaintiff offered no evidence linking restriction to termination | Summary judgment for defendant — plaintiff failed to plead prima facie retaliation and pregnancy/morning sickness is not a disability under CFEPA |
| Retaliation for opposing age discrimination (§46a‑60(4)) | Complained to management about unequal discipline (older vs younger) and was terminated a week later | No concrete evidence (only plaintiff’s self‑serving assertions); employer offered nondiscriminatory reasons | Summary judgment for defendant — plaintiff did not produce admissible evidence establishing causal link |
| Contract claims (breach, implied contract, covenant) | Handbook disclaimer means employment agreement terms control; AACT six‑month filing limit not applicable to dentist’s written employment contract (per plaintiff) | Plaintiff signed handbook acknowledgment containing AACT six‑month limitations provision after signing employment contract; contract required written modification to override | Summary judgment for defendant — AACT is enforceable and bars contract claims filed >6 months after the event |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523 (summary judgment standards)
- Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. Partnership, 311 Conn. 301 (summary judgment—view evidence for nonmovant)
- Perez‑Dickson v. Bridgeport, 304 Conn. 483 (use of McDonnell Douglas under CFEPA)
- Dept. of Transportation v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 272 Conn. 457 (federal precedent guides Connecticut anti‑discrimination law)
- Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania, 231 Conn. 756 (moving party’s burden to support summary judgment)
- Marinos v. Poirot, 308 Conn. 706 (counteraffidavits/concrete evidence required to create genuine issue)
- Cruz v. Visual Perceptions, LLC, 311 Conn. 93 (contract ambiguity principles)
- Gupta v. New Britain General Hospital, 239 Conn. 574 (inadmissible self‑serving assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment)