Free Motion for Clarification - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

l ase 3:00-cv-01062-JCH Document 93 Filed O1/26[2004 Page 1 of 3
( ~a / -\
l II) R)
y · M \
l fill lflil i
l
Zllllll JAN Zh ln l2° Ob i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT counr ¤€}*_._;`”§ I I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT nn. .- ..
TAMMY D. RICHARDSON CIVIL ACTION NO.: i
PLAINTIFF 3:00CV1062JCH `
VS- At: Bridgeport !
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION, et al i
DEFENDANTS January 23, 2004
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
The Defendant, Metropolitan District Commission, requests that the Court i
clarify its ruling on the Plaintiff s constructive discharge claims. The Court
entered Summary Judgment for the Defendant on the Plaintiffs constructive I
discharge claim under the FMLA on August 2, 2002. The Court also confirmed
its prior dismissal of the Plaintiffs constructive discharge claims under Title VII.
See Court ruling at 13. The Court stated the following at page 28 of its ruling:
Constructive discharge occurs where an employer intentionally
creates working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would `
feel forced to resign. Chertkova v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81,
89 (2d Cir. 1996). Most ofthe conduct that Richardson alleges as a basis
for constructive discharge occurred four months before her resignation and
was the Subj ect of a then—pending CHRO complaint, filed on August 6,
1999. Richardson’s last negative work experience before she resigned
occurred on August 30, when MDC denied her step increment after the _
six—month probationary period expired. Richardson has not presented any
evidence of misconduct or complaints of misconduct between August 30 ‘
and November 3, when Richardson requested and MDC granted medical
leave.
l Because MDC continued to grant Richardson’s requests for
‘ 7 I Yi TP `"tn `-CTT *¥*
I I F T` i Ig fg iiti RT T
i EI; ·; in 5 5 5,; g y, gg -- A; I .. I I I I I I I __ I __ I __ I __ I __g glin

ise 3:00-cv-O1Q32wlCH Document 93 Filed O1/@675004 Page 2 of 3
l `x...»’ `~
l m
-g_
medical leave, as evidenced in November 1999, even though she had i
exhausted the leave required under FMLA Richardson has no basis to i
argue that the alleged constructive discharge had a causal connection her
use of FMLA leave. Further, Richardson worked for over two months `
with no complaints before she resigned. Therefore, there is no basis for a ,
reasonable jury to find that she was constructively discharged as a result i
of her use of FMLA leave. g
The Court specifically found that Richardson did not present any evidence
of complaints of misconduct between August 30 and November 3, when _
Richardson was placed on medical leave. In addition, the Court found most of the R
conduct alleged by the Plaintiff occurred some four months before her
I
resignation, and was the subject of a pending CHRO complaint, tiled on August 6, `
1999. Given these factual findings, the Defendant submits that the Plaintiff is
barred from raising a constructive discharge claim under Section 1981 and R
Section 1983. l
As a result of the prior ruling of the Court, the Defendant requests that the
N


I 1se 3:00-cv-01062-.5CH Document 93 Filed O1/?6/5004 Page 3 of 3 I
¤__
E
l
-3-
Plaintiff be barred from raising any constructive discharge claims at trial. I
1
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION, et al I
I I .·‘` » »’',i- ‘ rf I
BY ii'} ij {gr.-·*/{ zi I I
AN NY J. PAI-ERMINO I
Thei Attorney I
Law Offices of Anthony J. Palermino, LLC
945 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06114
(860) 296—0035
ct05651 I
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid,
on the 23rd day of January, 2004 to Attorney Paul M. Ngobeni, 914 Main Street,
I
Suite 206, East Hartford, East Hartford, CT 06108. E
I
..’. .11 /“ _ I
ANTHONY . LERMIN O
I
I I
.. . _.-.1