Page 36 - CLT032320

36 ¦ MARCH 23, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

pressed anger at both the officers and the caller. ately retired prior to the hearing. Plaintiff
The same day, complainant sent respondents a filed an action for constructive termination in
letter requesting copies of all records pertain- violation of the Age Discrimination in Em-
ing to the 911 call. Two days later, the director ployment Act. In the trial court, the town suc-
of the city’s 911 communications department cessfully motioned for summary judgment by
forwarded the request to the city attorney. In arguing that plaintiff had not suffered an ad-
August, when no response was forthcoming, verse employment action where she chose to
complainant appealed to the commission. Re- voluntarily resign prior to the hearing. Plain-
spondents eventually provided the requested tiff appealed, arguing that her resignation
records to complainant on November 6. The was not voluntary because she was inevitably
records were redacted to remove the identity going to be fired after the hearing based on
of the caller. At a subsequent hearing, respon- the disciplinary matrix utilized by the town.
dents explained that they believed complainant The court agreed, and reversed the decision of
posed a threat to the caller, and they were thus the trial court. The court found that a reason-
entitled to redact the caller’s identifying infor- able person in plaintiff ’s shoes would have felt
mation pursuant to G.S. §1-210(b)(3)(A), which compelled to resign, and that the trial court
permits the withholding of records “compiled erred by weighing the evidence, as opposed to
in connection with the detection or investiga- viewing the facts in light most favorable to the
tion of crime” where the disclosure of an in- plaintiff, at the summary judgment phase.
formant’s or witness’ identity would potentially
put that person in danger. The commission re-
jected respondents’ reliance on §1-210(b)(3)(A), U.S. DISTRICT COURT
finding that the records at issue here were not
compiled in connection with the detection or
investigation of any crime. The abandonment BANKING AND FINANCE LAWS •
of a vehicle for longer than 24 hours is an in- CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS
fraction, punishable by a fine, and not a crime.
Respondents accordingly violated the FOI Act
by redacting the records so as to withhold the Court Awards Attorneys’ Fees and
caller’s identity. Respondents further violated Sanctions In Meritless FDCPA
the FOI Act by taking more than three months Violation Claim
to respond to complainant’s request.
CASE: Cobb v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DOC. NO.: 3:17-CV-1629 (VLB)
COURT OPINION BY: Bryant
DATE: March 10, 2020 • PAGES: 37
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION Defendant Enhanced Recovery attempted to
collect on a $1,500 debt accumulated on the
plaintiff ’s Target credit card, sending a notice
Court Reverses Summary Judgment in that only contained the acronym “ERC” as their
Employment ADEA Action entity name. Plaintiff then called the number on
the letter, only to be told the defendant’s corpo-
CASE: Green v. Town of East Haven rate name was “ERC”. Plaintiff then brought an
COURT: U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit action for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
DOC. NO.: 18-0143 Practices Act. On the same day defendant filed
COURT OPINION BY: Kearse an answer, plaintiff ’s counsel offered to settle
DATE: March 10, 2020 • PAGES: 37
Plaintiff was employed with the defendant for $5,000. Over the next several months plain-
in the records division of the Police Depart- tiff sent multiple settlement offers to defendant,
ment. At 58 years old, plaintiff was allegedly none of which were accepted. Defendant filed a
treated with hostility and harassment after a motion for summary judgment, which the court
younger coworker was hired. In one such in- granted, finding the initials utilized sufficiently
cident plaintiff was found to have taken items identified the true name of the entity attempting
from the kitchen without permission and was to collect. A month later defendant filed a mo-
subject to an investigation which would have tion for sanctions and attorneys’ fees, and the
led to a hearing, however plaintiff immedi- court granted the motion. Defendant argued

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune