King v. Strawberry Park Resort Campground, Inc.

1

EAN KING, Plaintiff, v. STRAWBERRY PARK RESORT CAMPGROUND, INC., Defendant.

CIVIL No. 3:20-CV-01905 (JCH)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

February 28, 2023

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 29)

JANET C. HALL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Ean King (“King”) originally brought this action against defendant Strawberry Park Resort Campground, Inc. (“Strawberry Park”) in the Superior Court of Connecticut, claiming employment discrimination. See Complaint, Def.'s Ex. A to Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 2) (hereinafter “Compl.”). Specifically, Count One of King's Complaint alleges gender discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”); Count Two alleges sexual orientation discrimination in violation of CFEPA; and Count Three alleges “gender/sexual orientation discrimination” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991. Compl. at 1-3.^[1]Defendant Strawberry Park Resort Campground, Inc. (“Strawberry Park”) subsequently removed the case to this court. See Defendant's Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 2). King's case stems from Strawberry Park's decision to terminate him in the Summer of 2019, the day after King disclosed his sexual orientation in a conversation with his direct supervisor. Compl. at 1.

Strawberry Park has moved for summary judgment on all three Counts of discrimination, as well as the issue of damages. See Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.'s Mot.”) (Doc. No. 29); Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.'s Mem.”) (Doc. No. 29-10). King opposes that Motion. See Plaintiff's Objection re: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.'s Mot.”) (Doc. No. 30); Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.'s Mem.”) (Doc. No. 30-1).

For the reasons stated below, Strawberry Park's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29) is granted in part, and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND^[2]

Strawberry Park “operates a campground facility in Preston, Connecticut,” and typically hires extra employees for its camping season, which begins Memorial Day Weekend and winds down around Labor Day weekend. Plaintiff's Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement (“Pl.'s LR 56(a)2 Stmt”) ¶¶ 3-4 (Doc. No. 30-2). King was one such employee: he began his job as a part-time housekeeper, “cleaning the interior of [the] mobile home units used for camping,” in April 2019. Id. at ¶¶ 21,25. King understood that his position was seasonal, and he worked between approximately seven and a half hours to fourteen hours per week until his termination on or about June 16, 2019. Id. at ¶¶ 24, 35, 45; King Deposition (“King Dep.”), Pl.'s Ex. A at 27:4-8 (Doc. No. 30-3). As a part-time, seasonal employee, King did not receive benefits such as “health or dental insurance, retirement, vacation leave, disability insurance, etc.” Pl.'s LR 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 37.^[3]

At the campground, King reported directly to Lacia Euell (“Euell”), who had worked with him in his other part-time job at Panera and was the one who initially recommended King apply for his job with Strawberry Park. Id. at ¶ 26. King confessed that he was “lazy and did not want to go to the store” for cleaning products; because he had access to such products through his housekeeping position, he would occasionally ask Euell for permission to bring some home for personal use. Id. at ¶¶ 30-31. On “at least four [ ] occasions”, King brought cleaning supplies home after receiving permission from Euell to do so. Id. at ¶¶ 29, 31.

Euell's direct supervisor, Jeremy Klemm (“Klemm”), only interacted with King one time. Id. at ¶ 34. King was “very loud” and “every other word was a curse word”, which prompted Klemm to write to Euell for her to “warn [King] about his unprofessional conduct in the workplace within earshot of guests.” Id.;^[4] see also Affidavit of Klemm (“Klemm Aff.”), Def.'s Ex. D ¶ 8 (Doc. No. 29-5). Klemm swore that he also spoke with Euell, on or about June 10, 2019, about “difficulties that she was having with Mr. King regarding his performance of the job, motivation to do the work, and his bad attitude and unprofessional conduct” such as “language and rudeness to others”, and “encouraged Euell to terminate” King. Pl.'s LR 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 34; Klemm Aff. ¶ 10.^[5]

Several days later, and a day before King was ultimately terminated, Euell joined a discussion between King and his girlfriend, Racheal Perry (“Perry”). Pl.'s LR 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶¶ 48, 50. In her deposition for the instant case, Perry described the interaction as follows:

[King] and I were talking about [our coworker's issues with her girlfriend]. And [Euell] had come over into the conversation and then she was included in that conversation. And then once I had told her, you know, the girl was having troubles with her girlfriend, [Euell] had said - she had stated that she has a problem with gay people because of something that happened with her brother while he was incarcerated. And [King] had come out and said he was bisexual. And then [Euell] just - she walked away.

Perry Deposition (“Perry Dep.”), Pl.'s Ex. B at 26:24-27:8. When asked how Euell's treatment of King changed after learned of his sexual orientation, Perry testified that “[i]t was more [Euell's] attitude towards him. [. . .] It's hard to explain, you know, somebody's features and their tone. But it was all just disgust and demeaning. Like he was just so small . . . .” Id. at 26:12-14, 26:16-19. In fact, Perry was so upset over the interaction that she resigned from Strawberry Park shortly thereafter, texting her supervisor that she had “witnessed something terrible” and could not come back to work. See Id. at 24:15-23, 26:1-11. When asked at her deposition to describe this “terrible” thing, Perry testified:

[It was t]he way that [Euell] reacted to [King] when he had come out to her and said he was bisexual. It was just - the disgust and the look in her face. And she - it just - it changed completely. . . . [I]t's the look on her face and the way she treated him. Her attitude changed. It's just wrong. It's disgusting. It's demeaning.

Id. at 26:1-11.^[6]

That same day, King also requested permission to take cleaning supplies home, and Euell refused for the first time. Pl.'s LR 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 31. King testified that, because he did not receive permission, he did not take supplies that day. Id. The following day, King was fired: he “received a text message from Euell . . . telling him that [ ] her manager said that she had to let him go . . . .” Id. at ¶ 35. The reason that Euell gave, for why she allegedly was told to fire King, was “for taking supplies from the supply closet” rather than any of the behavioral issues allegedly discussed in her meeting with Klemm several days prior. Id.

King did not apply for a job to replace his part-time employment with Strawberry Park following his termination. Id. at ¶ 53. He worked at Panera Bread before and during his time with Strawberry Park, and he continued working there between twentyseven and forty hours per week until the pandemic caused mass layoffs in March 2022. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10, 22.^[7] King did not look for work between his layoff from Panera and the date of his deposition in the instant case, August 16, 2021, because “he was making more money collecting unemployment benefits than he made when working.” Id. at ¶ 11. The extent of job searches that King does now is limited to “look[ing] online . . . for warehouse or hotel jobs” and having “his mother or sister [ ] apply for him . . . .” Id. at ¶ 12.

King filed concurrent complaints with the Connecticut Human Rights Organization (“CHRO”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in October 2019 and received jurisdictional releases from both the following year. Compl. at 2. He filed the instant action in Connecticut Superior Court on November 25, 2020, and Strawberry Park removed the case to this court on December 23, 2020. Id. at 1; Notice of Removal at 1. Strawberry Park subsequently filed the instant Motion, arguing, inter alia, that, (1) with regard to King's discrimination claims, King has established neither the requisite inferences of discrimination nor that Strawberry Park's proffered reason for King's termination was false; (2) King is not entitled to damages in the form of backpay because he did not mitigate his damages; and (3) King has not provided any facts supporting an award of emotional distress damages. See Def.'s Mot. at 2.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment may be granted only where the moving party can establish that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986); Wright v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr., 831 F.3d 64, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2016). If the moving party satisfies this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is indeed “a genuine issue for trial.” Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009). A genuine issue exists where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Cross Commerce Media, Inc. v. Collective, Inc., 841 F.3d 155, 162 (2d Cir. 2016). The role of a district court in considering a motion for summary judgment “is . . . only to determine whether, as to any material issue, a genuine factual dispute exists.” In re Dana Corp., 574 F.3d 129, 151 (2d Cir. 2009). In making this determination, the district court “may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Kaytor v. Elec. Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537, 545 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Rather...