Page 39 - CLT120919

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 9, 2019 ¦ 39

Plaintiff sued defendant claiming that she was a judgment and award entered against him,
discriminated against based on her Hispanic eth- Kuczynski filed the instant application to vacate
nicity and her husband’s race, and that she was arbitration award. The court denied his appli-
retaliated against for filing a complaint with the cation. The issue that the court addressed was
Commission on Human Rights and Opportuni- whether the arbitrator manifestly disregarded
ties. The defendant filed a motion for summary the law by looking to extrinsic evidence to as-
judgment, which the court granted. Evidence certain the meaning of the parties’ severance
showed that over the course of several years, agreement. The court found that it was clear
plaintiff was reprimanded multiple times for rea- that the arbitrator was aware of the relevant
sons such as unexplained absences, failing to as- law and correctly applied it; he determined that
sess students, and violating the school’s visitor any ambiguity identified must come from the
policy. The court first addressed plaintiff’s Title contract language, not from one party’s subjec-
VII discrimination claim where she alleged two tive interpretation. Therefore, the court found
adverse employment actions: rejection of her ap- that the arbitrator identified the “clearly gov-
plications for other board positions and the non- erning legal principle” to reach its conclusion
renewal of her position at the school. As to her
unsuccessful applications, the court found that and denied Kuczynki’s motion to vacate.

she failed to prove circumstances that gave rise to TRADEMARKS • CIVIL PROCEDURE
an inference of discriminatory intent. The court
stated that she was turned down for the position
because she received the lowest score of all the Court Granted In Part, Denied In Part
applicants, and that the claims that she was re- Motion To Dismiss Counterclaims
jected based on her race were wholly conclusory.
The court then turned to her non-renewal claim. CASE: Hybrid Athletics, LLC. v. Hylete, Inc.
She argued that her contract was not renewed COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
because of her ethnicity and her husband’s race. DOC. NO.: 3:17-cv-1767
The court addressed each in turn. As to her eth- COURT OPINION BY: Bolden
nicity, the court found that she presented virtually DATE: November 27, 2019 • PAGES: 13
no evidence that her non-renewal was because of
her ethnicity. Similarly, as to her claim that her Plaintiff moved to dismiss five of the 17 counter-
husband’s race also caused her non-renewal, the claims filed by the defendant. The court did not
court held that there was no evidence establish- discuss the underlying facts of the lawsuit. The
ing a nexus between this and the alleged disparate court addressed each contested counterclaim.
treatment. The court pointed to the multitude As to counterclaim five, the court found that the
of reasons the board had for choosing not to defendant properly pled the counterclaim be-
renew her contract. The court also decided that cause its amended answer specified the allegedly
plaintiff’s retaliation claim failed for the reasons fraudulent statements, explained why the state-
discussed above. Therefore the court granted the ments were fraudulent and who said them, and
defendant’s motion for summary judgment. the lower court already granted the defendant
leave to amend this claim. The court dismissed
counterclaim six. It agreed with plaintiff that the
discovery required for this counterclaim at this
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION • late stage in the litigation would be prejudicial
DISPUTE RESOLUTION to plaintiff by substantially increasing the time
and cost to litigate it. Lastly, plaintiff moved to
Court Denied Application To Vacate dismiss defendants’ ownership counterclaims on
the basis that defendants did not plead facts sup-
Arbitration Award In Employment porting the contention that plaintiff’s founder
Arbitration was not the owner of the relevant trademarks
at the time of the application. The court found
CASE: Kuczynski v. Viad Corp that this particular argument involved a question
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut of law and it would be improper to decide this
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-226 issue on a motion to dismiss. Therefore, the court
COURT OPINION BY: Dooley denied the motion to dismiss as to these claims.
DATE: November 21, 2019 • PAGES: 11
Plaintiff and defendant were involved in an ar- Therefore, the motion to dismiss was granted in
bitration of an employment dispute. Following part and denied in part.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune