Page 40 - CLT061421

40 ■ JUNE 14, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
court found the declaration of restrictions to Plaintiff sought to compel responses to one
be binding and enforceable. The court further interrogatory and seven requests for produc-
found defendants did not breach the restriction tion, claiming they were relevant to assess
declaration, nor breached the implied covenant defendant’s purported reason of terminating
of good faith and fair dealing. The court also plaintiff “for cause.” Defendant objected,
awarded attorney fees to defendant. claiming other employees’ terminations were
factually and legally distinguishable, and the
U.S. DISTRICT COURT breadth of information sought by plaintiff
would be unreasonably burdensome and ex-
cessive. The court held that other executives’
terminations were relevant to the bad faith
CIVIL PROCEDURE • LABOR LAW claim, and as such defendant bore the bur-
den of showing why discovery should be de-
Stroke Victim Unable to Demonstrate nied. However, the court denied that all of
Competence the information in the requests was relevant,
such as information about employees who re-
CASE: Chapman v. Ring’s End, Inc. signed rather than fired. The court addressed
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut defendant’s concern about discovery being
DOC. NO.: 3:17-cv-01084 overly burdensome by limiting requests to a
COURT OPINION BY: Bolden five-year period, three years before plaintiff’s
DATE: May 28, 2021 • PAGES: 10 termination.
Plaintiff sued defendant alleging Family and
Medical Leave Act violations and discrimi- LABOR LAW • CIVIL PROCEDURE •
nation based on disability. During litigation,
plaintiff suffered a stroke. The court ordered EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
plaintiff to demonstrate his ability to move
forward with lawsuit, but plaintiff failed to Common Practice Did not Compel
meet the deadline. The case was dismissed, but Conditional Certification of a
plaintiff moved to proceed with the lawsuit.
Plaintiff argued that he could manage his own Collective of Employees
affairs and provided an illegible note allegedly CASE: Headly v. Liberty Homecare Options, LLC
from his physician. The court denied plain- COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
tiff’s motion to reconsider because it could DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-00579
only extend a deadline if the delay was caused COURT OPINION BY: Meyer
by “excusable neglect.” Plaintiff had adequate DATE: June 01, 2021 • PAGES: 12
time to demonstrate competence, but he failed Defendant provides live-in and non-live-in
to provide verifiable medical evidence. caregiving services. Plaintiff was a former
live-in caregiver. Although she was contracted
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION • DISCOVERY to have uninterrupted sleep and breaks during
her shifts, she was working during her down
Discovery of Executives’ Terminations time. When she notified defendant, plaintiff
alleged defendant ignored her and timesheets
Relevant and not Overburdensome did not include a place to list interruptions.
CASE: DiPippa v. Edible Brands, LLC Plaintiff attempted to conditionally certify
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut a collective of all employees. Defendant ob-
DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-01434 jected to the motion, alleging that plaintiff
COURT OPINION BY: Merriam was not similarly situated to potential opt-in
DATE: June 01, 2021 • PAGES: 24 plaintiffs. The common practice that plaintiff
Plaintiff brought an action alleging breach of cited was the defective timesheets. The court
contract and breach of the implied covenant wrote that nothing on the timesheets appeared
of good faith and fair dealing following his to violate the Fair Labor Standards Act. Fur-
termination from defendant company. Plain- thermore, there was nothing that plaintiff pro-
tiff alleged that his termination was one of vided to show that she and other caregivers
several where executives were terminated “for were victims of a common policy. Plaintiff’s
cause” to deny them severance compensation. motion was denied without prejudice.
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune