Free Letter - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

,,_, M Case 3:03-cv—OO612—FlNC Document 15 Filed O2/10/2004 Paget 0f3
O r
O · hi Representing Management Exclusively in Workplace Law and Related Litigation
·—¤ ct. .. , .
G) O ' Y _ W , Jackson Lewis LLP ATLANTA, UA LOS ANGlZLl£S, CA SACltAMEN'l‘(>, (DA
I U] Iii E5 Farmington Avenue IIOSTUN, MA MIAMI, Fl. SAN l*l{.·\NCI5CO, CA
g U i FJ Suite 1200 CHICAGO, ll. M[NNI~1Al'OLIS, MN 5liATTLE, WA
O .. A[lZUlT1“l€yS QH l.r3.W t Ord, Connecticut 06105 l)Al.l.AS, TX MOILIt[5T()WN, N_[ S'l`AMFORD, C'l'
¤ P .
U GJ >" I4 U Tel8G0 522-0404 GltE£ENVILLli,SC NEW YORK, NY \\i·'ASHlNG'I‘ON, DC REGION
O aj ` E`} Fax SEO 247-1330 HARil`1’()RD, Cl` URl.J\ND(), Fl, \‘l·'l—ll'l`li PLAINS, NY
J.) l4.| \ `U www.jacksonIewls.cnm LONG ISLAND, NY 1>1TTSnU1 l ,_, 5 il l_%1..5·i ?§p§£§§3__ p l
sit U f1t}€;i;2§t`l'j-if, ~
i Q m . 0.3. llifar {ilu; Jl§!J·.»r:.
si
O rr it
se § ,
iv si M
Qt .., =
cn -.
-.-1 rs i
-¤ ~ Janua 29, 2004 I
4.1 451 ry ’
LH 0
O ..Cl x -
U, BY HAND DELIVERY ,
in 3 ";_"`“—'é · -/l~é— .,, Honorable Robert N. Chatrgny ‘
Q jg} United States District Judge
U g U.S. District Court
E5 ,8* 450 Main Street
i g Hartford, CT 06103
ws t>· . .
l g Q Re: Carlson v. Hartford Financial
i E Services Group, Inc.
$ 5 Civil Action No.: 303CV0612gRNC)
_g_) ED
rr
"J i" DearJud eCh t` ‘
.—i O g a 1gny·
¤—• .
`
E gl Pursuant to the Court’s Order on Pretrral Deadlines, Defendant submrts this
4-> request for pre-tiling conference to discuss its intent to file a Motion for Summary Judgment in
rc}: E the above referenced matter. In accordance with the Court’s Order, counsel for Defendant has
,;.4 PO conferred with counsel for Plaintiff The parties were not able to come to a mutually satisfactory `
8 rp resolution. Nevertheless, as discovery is ongoing, we will confer again prior to tiling a motion.
·¤ cn
0
iii 8*6 In his complaint Plaintiff claims his employment was terminated due to his age.
B4 Q Plaintiffs two count complaint alleges Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 29
M (D g U.S.C. § 621 et seg. ("ADEA") and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen.
si 5 S Stat.§ 46a-60 et seg. ("CFEPA"). The second count of the complaint further claims emotional
.2 O pain and suffering. Defendant did not discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of this age.
U 2 ur Defendant reorganized the department where Plaintiff worked. Jobs were eliminated including
_Q the position held by the Plaintiff sy
H >. =~ . . . . .
g 3 In August 2001, a new positron of Manager, Direct Marketmg Servrces GDMS)
qi N was created. This position combined the responsibilities of the Production Manager position
2 'Hi 6 held by Plaintiff with those of a Program Manager position that had been vacated. Plaintiff was
(. Ti . . . . . .
N 2 ·-• not selected fornthe newl created ositron as he did not demonstrate the required skills and his
YU P . .. .. . ..
* 5 ·—• erformashce rnciliis own osrtion was lackrn . As Pla1nt1ff’s former osrtron did not contrnue in ¢
GO-·—e p :~ .p. .. . . ..
"' U E4 thel.new;qrganiaat_r§on, hrs Job was elrmrnated. At this time, Plaintiff was 49 years old and the
R, at , in- (vg __;_r
g E cu ‘ 3;. _
M 0 bl » ‘.._ · -.‘.
-9 UL!-l ...
IU (D 0.) in -' ·;t
lk-I H .-Cl ` ` ':` '
£ 25@2’·i¥Ei§I`2i§3b'T¤t§‘3;%é’5£?tie;€;>¥{>;>·z:·¤ag>-:--·.-~¤~7---- T ‘ ”” _ · —* ’ ““~€ ‘i=> · ·. y.? - 7 gig - -;; ..:_ .;-A; , 2
e n r. or ~.s. er S. . A » A as 2 .

I _ · Case 3:03-cv—OO612—RNC Document 15 Filed O2/10/2004 Page 2 of 3
I I
0 ]3CkSOI’II IGWIS ¥'“““““>’ 20· 2004 I
I Page 2
I Attorneys at Law
I decision-maker responsible for making the organizational changes in the DMS department was
56. The seven remaining staff members ranged in age from 28 to 56 with a median age of 42.
I To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Plaintiff must show that he
"(1) was a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) was discharged;
I and (4) the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of
I discrimination." Rosen v. Thomburgh, 928 F.2d 528, 532 (2d Cir. 1991). Once a plaintiff
_ establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to offer a legitimate, non-
I discriminatory reason for its actions. McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
"[T]o defeat summary judgment . . . the plaintiffs admissible evidence must show circrunstances
that would be sufficient to permit a rational finder of fact to infer that the defendant's
I employment decision was more likely than not based in whole or in part on discrimination."
Stern v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 131 F.3d 305, 312 (2d Cir. 1997). Plaintiff cannot show
that he was terminated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination or .
that Defendant’s reason for terminating his employment, due to a reorganization of his I
department and elimination of his position, was a pretext for age discrimination. r
Plaintiff further cannot show that his position was eliminated under circumstances
giving rise to an inference of age discrimination. Reorganization of the DMS department I
incorporated Defenda.nt’s need to address a downturn in business, the need to optimize resources _
and conserve expenses. A court will not evaluate business decisions or question a corporation's
means to achieve a legitimate goal. Dister v. Continental Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108, 1115 (2d I
Cir. 1988); see also Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co., 827 F.2d 13, 20 (7th Cir. 1987) ("A ‘
business decision need not be good or even wise. It simply has to be nondiscriminatory .... "). I
Here, Defendant was entitled to make the business judgment that in the face of a downturn in [
business it could combine a production function position held by Plaintiff with that of vacant I
position of program manager. I
The elimination of Plaintiff s position as part of a department reorganization was I
not a pretext for age discrimination. To establish pretext, "the plaintiff must produce not simply
'some' evidence, but 'sufficient' evidence to support a rational finding that the legitimate, E
nondiscriminatory reasons proffered by the defendants were false, and that more likely than not
[discrimination] was the real reason for the [employment action]." Weinstock v. Columbia
@, 224 F.3d 33, 42 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 157 L.Ed. 2d 24, 124 S. Ct. 53 (2003)
(quoting Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 80 F.3d 708, 714 (2d Cir. 1996)). Here,
Plaintiff cannot show either that the stated reason for the elimination of his position was false or
that the real reason for his termination was age discrimination.
I
V

i - “ Case 3:03-cv—OO612—RNC Document 15 Filed O2/10/2004 Page 3 of 3
I [ 1
_|3CkSOI'I IBWIS A *'““““"Y 29· 2°°‘”*
Page 3
Attorneys at Law
Defendant requests the Court approve its request for a pre-tiling conference but
. not schedule a conference until after discovery closes on March 15, 2004. A copy of this request
has been provided to Plaintiff s counsel.
i Very truly yours,
{ JACKSON LEWIS LLP
i `XJ ~5U~*@’~ ®“"““""§
\ c ..
i William J. Anthony _
cc: Judith D. Meyer, Esq. ·~—·» \
I
t
t
I
-