Page 34 - CLT122120

34 ¦ DECEMBER 21, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-94 (1978), to Everitt, a production manager shouted and
to prevail against the motion, Accarino and Pan- swore at him during the call. Everitt sued, claim-
tuso had to anchor their claim on a town policy ing discrimination in violation of the ADA. His
or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by complaint was dismissed without prejudice. He
those whose edicts or acts which could fairly be filed an amended complaint and Jarvis moved to
said to represent official policy. But they offered dismiss. The district court granted the motion,
no factual support, other than this particular this time without leave to amend. The court
incident, to suggest that responding “overly-ag- observed that it had previously advised Everitt
gressively” and “in excessive numbers” was a pol- as to how a plausibility pleading standard ap-
icy, practice, or custom of the town. In particular, plies to the evidentiary framework for proving
they did not point to any written record of such disparate treatment employment discrimination
a policy, or any act of a policymaker that indi- claims based on indirect evidence. A plaintiff ’s
cated condonation of the police officers’ actions. allegations must be plausibly supported by facts
They failed to plead facts that plausibly indicated alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is a
that this incident represented anything other than member of a protected class, was qualified, suf-
the independent actions of the officers. Further, fered an adverse employment action, and has at
with regard to plaintiffs’ claims against the town least minimal support for the proposition that
for money damages, they offered no response to the employer was motivated by discriminatory
the town’s argument that damages claims based intent. Everitt had to plausibly allege that he
on violations of the state constitution cannot be was disabled within the meaning of the ADA or
maintained against a municipal entity. And final- perceived to be so by Jarvis, because that was
ly, regarding the claim against Kellogg, the real a necessary element of his disability discrimina-
party in interest was the town, not Kellogg. Thus, tion claim. He failed to meet that standard. By
the claim could not survive. itself, the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome,

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION with a 2% disability rating, was insufficient for
the court to draw an inference of a medical dis-
ability. A determination as to actual disability
Employment Discrimination Plaintiff is properly to be based on a functional inquiry.
Failed to Plausibly Allege He Was In this case, further leave to amend on this issue
Disabled or Regarded as Disabled would have been futile. Further, Everitt failed to
establish that Jarvis perceived him to be intellec-
tually disabled. The fact that managers observed
CASE: Everitt v. Jarvis Airfoil, Inc. harassment by co-workers was not sufficient.
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut Even assuming co-workers did actually regard
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-001853 Everitt as mentally deficient, that did not estab-
COURT OPINION BY: Bryant lish that Jarvis shared that view.
DATE: December 08, 2020 • PAGES: 19
The court granted with prejudice a 12(b)(6) mo-
tion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Wages-and-Hours Claimant Failed to
the Americans with Disabilities Act, finding Provide Necessary Documentation
that the claimant failed to plausibly establish
a case for employment discrimination. James CASE: Mmolawa v. Diligent Enterprises, Inc.
Everitt was employed as a hand finisher by Jar- COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
vis Airfoil, Inc., a manufacturer. According to DOC. NO.: 3:19-cr-00300
a complaint he filed later, other employees de- COURT OPINION BY: Bryant
rided him as a “retard” and an “operator [with- DATE: December 07, 2020 • PAGES: 26
out] brains.” Everitt’s complaints to HR did not The court granted in part and denied in part de-
resolve the issue. Everitt’s attorney sent a let- fendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plain-
ter to Jarvis that asserted Everitt’s co-worker’s tiff Tierlo Mmolawa was employed as a live-in
conduct violated anti-discrimination laws. After health care aide by defendant Diligent Enterpris-
the letter, Everitt received treatment for wrist es, Inc. His employment ceased and Mmolawa
disability caused by carpal tunnel syndrome. sued Diligent, alleging he was was not paid for in-
Several years later, a co-worker stole Everitt’s terrupted sleep time and for denied meal breaks.
personal tool and they argued. Jarvis suspended He also alleged that Diligent improperly deduct-
Everitt later that day. Following a conference ed costs of food and lodging from his wages in
call the next day, Everitt was fired. According amounts that should have been, but were not,

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune