Free Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00149-WIG Document 161 -9 Filed 07/28/2005 ? E · · _ _
ze DEFENDANTS ‘:E
I - E _-_.- ‘-`*EXH!BiT; 1 . -.·.·
_E._r1gf`;{@Y _-_·__-_ ..-.
j_ .-.·` _.-·.z jj. _‘_‘
iw? UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
FERRON SHORTER, JR., . Case No. 3:03—CV—00I49
. (WIG}
Plaintiff, ,
. Bridgeport, Connecticut
v. . January 28, 2005
HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES I
GROUP, INC., ET AL., I
Defendants. 1
CONTINUED TRIAL
BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM I. GARFINKEL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
APPEARANCES;
_ For the Plaintiif: Law Offices
By: RACHEL M. BAIRD, ESQ.
gyr Stonegate Professional Bldg
TA+! 379 Frospect Street
Torrington, CT 06790~5239
For the Defendant: Jackson Lewis
By: MARGARET STRANGE, ESQ.
JAMES F. SHEA, ESQ.
55 Farmington Avenue
Suite 1200
Hertford, CT 06105
Court Monitor: MS. SANDRA J. BALDWIN
MS. MARIA CORRIETTE
Proceedings recorded by eiectronic sound recording.
Transcript prepared by transcription service.
BOWLWEQS REZF’C)F€iT'ING SERVICE
FAO. BOX 607
(SALES FERRY. CZC)NNE7CT'iCU`§" 055335
;}:;._;Q;;_,, (860) 4644 OBB

Case 3:03-cv-00149-WIG Document 161-9 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 2 of 4
28
Qhg l instruction, it's my argument, but it really all goes
2 back to Lisa Anderson, because it’s clear, if you look
3 at De§endants’ Exhibit 53Q, the warning that Mary Ann
4 Rhodes received, what the heck is the subject matter?
5 “Warning of Improper E—Mail Internet Use ”
6 I don’t —- It doesn't even appear that Sharon
7 Courey and Brian Vadney knew what happened, and then
B Ms. Courey testifies that the iog—on ID password
9 attachment is what she was given to show, you know, how
l0 she violated the electronics communication poiicy, and
li Ms. Anderson comes in and says, “That’s not the right
l2 attachment. That doesn't have anything to with the
y£% 13 voice mail system ” And you know, what? On this point
fw: Innll 14 I have to agree with Ms. Anderson. I have to, because
i5 if you look at it, if you look at it clearly, it does
16 say that “all passwords must he eight characters in
l? length,” and it was ciear from the testimony that voice
28 mail passwords are six characters in length.
l9 So what is this attachment that Mary Anne
2G Rhodes was given? What is the subject matter, having
2l to do with e~maii and internet use? And in the
22 investigation report, it's referred to as a “final
23 warning.” It doesn't say “Final Warning" on there. it
24 says “Warning,” and in all honestly, it doesn't look
25 like it was real harsh.

Case 3:03-cv-00149-WIG Document 161-9 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 3 of 4
44
&%§ l There’s no delineation of what’s more
2 serious, less serious. It’s not in their policy, and
3 as Ms. Rhodes read to you, the attachment to the
4 warning that she received indicated that you’re
5 accountable for all actions initiated under your
6 password.
7 Of course, by this time we’ve noticed that
8 that's not the correct attachment, but it’s the
9 attachment that Mary Anne Rhodes was given with regard
10 to her violation, and we would argue that it certainly
ll applies in this case.
12 Our argument. Ms, Anderson, Mr, Wardell, Ms,
$%; 13 Ames had no basis, on January 23rd, 2002, other than
0- 14 Rhodes' »— Ms, Rhodes' statement that plaintiff had
15 ever shown Rhodes a gun, That’s something that only
16 Mary Anne said,
ll In January 2002, during the investigation,
l8 Ms. Anderson and Mr, Wardell had direct knowledge, or
l9 could have had direct knowledge of Rhodes' harassing
20 phone calls to plaintiff at work, when plaintiff told
21 them about those phone calls, but they declined to
22 follow up on that.
23 In essence, and to put it brutally, The
24 hartford chose to believe that Mr. Shorter was a
25 violent, gun—possessing, black male who presented a

Case 3:03-cv-00149-WIG D0cument161-9 Filed 07/28/2005 Page40f4
136
E c B R T I F J; c A T E
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript
from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings
in the ebove—entitled metterq
-_ .ée;c4é_0.ié_*;eé”t~¤0 February 00. 2000
STEPHEN c. Bowtes