Page 41 - CLT022420

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS FEBRUARY 24, 2020 ¦ 41

in New Orleans, plaintiff received several PERSONAL INJURY
negative reports concerning his ability to un-
derstand the products and effectively commu- Court Finds Sufficient Facts Alleged For
nicate in English. His supervisor scheduled Malicious Prosecution Claim To Survive
an one-on-one dinner with plaintiff where
plaintiff alleged supervisor made several com- Summary Judgment
ments disparaging Asian culture. A year later,
the company initiated a program encouraging CASE: Stonick v. Delvecchio
home-based employees to return to the office. COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
Plaintiff requested an exception but company DOC. NO.: 3:17-cv-01365
management denied his request and plaintiff COURT OPINION BY: Dooley
was told that failure to move and return to the DATE: February 07, 2020 • PAGES: 24
office would result in his inclusion in the next
workforce reduction. Company HR notified Stonick’s sister went on a date to a restau-
plaintiff of the date of his last day of work. rant with the victim, where the sister allegedly
Prior to his last workday, plaintiff took dis- charged a $300 gift card to Paccha’s credit card.
ability leave for depression. He was later able The Westport police investigated the incident
to return to work with reduced hours. Upon and brought charges against Stonick, based
return, he was told to find another role in the largely on Paccha’s mistaken identification from
company, but was ultimately released from a photo array which included the sister. Stonick
was initially charged, however the charges were
later dismissed. Stonick then brought claims
employment. Plaintiff brought a claim for for malicious prosecution and violations of
failure to provide reasonable accommodations her fourth amendment rights, and defendants
under the ADA, and discrimination on the moved to dismiss. Stonick argued she was ar-
basis of race and national origin. Defendant rested without probable cause, alleging false
moved for summary judgment, and the court representations and tainted photo arrays which
granted the motion. The court found the two resulted in her arrest. Defendant argued that
“accommodations” requested by the plaintiff Paccha’s statements and positive, albeit mistak-
were unreasonable and excessively costly for en, identification from the photo array were suf-
defendant to support. The court found the ficient to establish probable cause for an arrest
plaintiff failed to identify an existing vacant warrant. The court found a trier of fact could
position that would accommodate him, and find so, however found the officer was not en-
thus failed to meet his summary judgment titled to qualified immunity except in her official
burden. The court also found the defendant capacity. The court found the case was “simply
provided a legitimate non-discriminatory rea- too close to call” on summary judgment. The
son for the adverse employment actions, and court denied in part and granted in part the
granted summary judgment. defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Looking for an accomplished expert?

ALM Experts has leaders in every discipline.

ONE ultimate resource includes:
• More than 15,000 pro?les of leading expert witnesses
• 4,000 areas of expertise covering all 50 states

Access to a range of high-pro?le experts is just a click away.

ALMExperts.com

Your source for experts, consultants & litigation support services.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune