Ridgeway v. Royal Bank of Scotland Grp.

LOUIS RIDGEWAY, Plaintiff,

v. ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP andRBS GLOBAL BANKING AND MARKETS, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-cv-976 (VLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Dated: March 26, 2012

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. #18]

Plaintiff Louis Ridgeway (Ridgeway) brings this action for damages against the Defendant Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS) relating to his termination from RBS on April 22, 2010, while on leave for medical treatment. Ridgeway alleges that RBS violated the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (FMLA) and the Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Act (CTFMLA), Conn. Gen Stat. §31-51kk et seq. Additionally, Ridgeway asserts claims of wrongful termination, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation under Connecticut common law.

Currently pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss all claims for relief for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and D. Conn. L. Civ. P. Rule 7(a). Further, the Defendant seeks legal fees and costs pertaining to Ridgeway's third claim brought under the CTFMLA asserting that Ridgeway lacked substantial justification for bringing this claim.

I. Factual Background

RBS is a multinational bank headquartered in Edinburgh, Scotland with its United States corporate headquarters located in Stamford, Connecticut. [Dkt #1, Compl., ¶¶12-13]. Ridgeway, a New Jersey resident, was employed by ABN AMRO between November 2001 and November 2008. Id. at ¶17. During a merger between ABN AMRO and RBS, Ridgeway was placed as a secondee in the RBS offices in Stamford, Connecticut. Id. Following the merger, Ridgeway was employed by RBS as a Senior Operations Analyst and a Bank Reconciliation Analyst from November 2008 until April 22, 2010. Id. at ¶16. In July of 2009, Ridgeway became a permanent employee of RBS, entitling him to retain all seniority, benefits, and vacation time from his previous employment with ABN AMRO. Id. at ¶18.

Ridgeway has a history of bank and spinal problems and has undergone three disectomies, surgical procedures to remove a herniated disc from the spinal canal. [Dkt. #1, Compl., ¶19]. On or about October 5, 2009, Ridgeway fell at work "exacerbating his preexisting back and spinal problems." Id. at 21. During October and November 2009 Ridgeway took leave under the FMLA to complete a course of physical therapy. Id. at 23.

Ridgeway asserts that at that time RBS used the calendar year method for calculating FLMA leave, allowing eligible employees to take their full FMLA leave each calendar year and full CTFMLA leave beginning on even years. Id. at ¶¶28-29. Ridgeway had been previously informed of RBS's utilization of the calendar year method of calculating FMLA leave when, in May of 2009, Ridgeway soughttwo to three weeks off for an emergency gallbladder removal, and he received a letter titled "Confirmation of FMLA and/or Application State Leave(s) of Absence Request" memorializing in paragraph four RBS's calendar year policy. Id. at ¶29. In October of 2009 when he applied for FMLA leave to pursue physical therapy treatment Ridgeway received the same letter titled "Confirmation of FMLA and/or Applicable State Leave(s) of Absence Request again memorializing in paragraph four RBS's calendar year policy. Id. at ¶30.

On December 14, 2009, Ridgeway was notified by letter entitled "Request for FMLA and/or Applicable State Leave(s) Approval Notice" that his leave time from October 5, 2009 through December 31, 2009 had been approved. [Dkt. #1, Compl., ¶31]. This letter did not indicate the calculation method relied upon by RBS to calculate FMLA and/or CTFMLA leave. Id. at ¶31.

At the conclusion of his physical therapy regimen in November 2009, Ridgeway's doctor informed him that he required surgery to repair the damage in his neck and back which would necessitate six to ten weeks of recovery and additional physical therapy. Id. at ¶23. On December 1, 2009, Ridgeway was informed that his orthopedic surgeon had an opening to perform the surgery on December 3, 2009. Id. at ¶24. Ridgeway contacted Hewitt, the third party administrator of RBS's benefit programs, to discuss his options for continuing his leave. Id. at ¶¶24-26. Ridgeway explained to Hewitt that he would need two to three months to undergo neck surgery and physical rehabilitation, after which he would be able to return to work. [Dkt. #1, Compl., ¶26]. Hewitt told Ridgeway, on or about December 1, 2009, that he would be eligible for twelve weeks of FMLAleave and an additional four weeks of CTFMLA leave, effective January 1, 2010. Id. at ¶27. Ridgeway asserts that he relied on Hewitt's representation that he was eligible to take a full sixteen weeks of protected medical leave and scheduled his neck surgery for December 3, 2009 expecting to use the remainder of the FMLA leave previously approved and the second FMLA leave which Hewitt said he was entitled to take to complete his recovery. The record does not indicate whether Ridgeway formally applied for FMLA leave. Id. at ¶34.

At the end of January 2010, Ridgeway received a letter dated January 25, 2010, from Dawn Hughes, a Human Resources representative at RBS, stating that his FMLA leave "ha[d] exhausted as of January 1, 2010 and your position as Senior Operations Analyst has been put into the posting process/is no longer available. Please note your employment will remain in force so long as your Disability claim is approved." [Dkt. #1, Compl., ¶ 35]. The letter did not specify the leave to which it referred and did not address Ridgeway's eligibility for leave under the CTFMLA. Id. at ¶36. The letter instructed Ridgeway to contact Hewitt (referred to as "HR Services") with questions. Id. at ¶37.

On February 17, 2010, Ridgeway contacted Hewitt to inquire about the letter from RBS deeming his leave exhausted. Id. at ¶38. Hewitt informed Ridgeway that Dawn Hughes was incorrect, and that he was in fact entitled to take FMLA/CTFMLA leave through the end of April 2010 because RBS was using the "calendar year" method to determine successive leave intervals such that the period in which an eligible employee was permitted to take a second, or successive leave, would be once in every calendar year. Id. at ¶40. RBS does notdispute that a representative of Hewitt informed him that he was eligible for FMLA and CTFMLA leave through the end of April 2010. [Dkt. #1, Compl., ¶42]. Relying on Hewitt's representation that his leave was secure, Ridgeway remained at home to recover. Id. at ¶43.

In early April of 2010 Ridgeway received a letter dated March 31, 2010 from RBS entitled "Confirmation of FMLA and/or Applicable State Leave(s) of Absence Request." Id. at ¶44. The letter stated that his leave of absence beginning January 1, 2010, had been conditionally designated as FMLA leave. Id. The letter indicated that the conditional certification depended on the submission of medical information, return to work plans, and other documentation requirements. Id. at 46. The fourth paragraph stated "[u]nder RBS's FMLA leave policy colleagues can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave in a rolling backward 12 month period . . ." representing a change in RBS's policy from the previously used calendar year method of calculating leave eligibility. [Dkt. #1, Compl., ¶44]. RBS employees were not previously notified of this change in the method of calculating FMLA leave. Id. at ¶45. Approximately one week later, Ridgeway received another letter from RBS entitled "Confirmation of FMLA and/or Applicable State Leaves of Absence Request," dated April 7, 2010 and virtually identical to the previously received letter dated March 31, 2010. Id. at ¶47.

Ridgeway contacted Hewitt on April 5th and April 9th to discuss the two letters. Id. at ¶48. During both conversations, Hewitt representatives reassured Ridgeway that his leave was active and was approved through April 22, 2010. Id.

On or before April 13, 2010, Ridgeway contacted Connecticut's Department of Labor ("CT DOL") to seek their assistance in communicating with RBS about his protected leave under the FMLA and CTFMLA. [Dkt. #1, Compl., ¶53]. On the same day, the Principal Attorney of the Office Program Policy ("OPP Attorney") called Ridgeway back to notify him that she would initiate an investigation of his complaint. Id. at ¶54. Pursuant to her investigation of Ridgeway's complaint, the OPP Attorney contacted RBS's in-house counsel Amy Gare, Dawn Hughes and other RBS employees, and requested documentation from RBs concerning Ridgeway's leave and their leave calculation methods. Id. at ¶¶55-56.

On April 16, 2010 Ridgeway spoke with a representative of Hewitt named "Ebony" who informed him that there was now an outstanding question as to whether his FMLA/CTFMLA leave should have been approved on December 1, 2009 for the period of January 1, 2010 through April 22, 2010. [Dkt. #1, Compl., ¶50]. Ebony confirmed, however, that his leave had been approved on December 1, 2009. Id.

On or about April 19, 2010, Ridgeway contacted Dawn Hughes to clarify his employment status with RBS and was informed that he was still employed by RBS. Id. at ¶51. On April 22, 2010, Dawn Hughes and her supervisor in RBS's Human Resources Department, Ronni Greenberg, contacted Ridgeway to inform him that he was terminated. Id. at ¶57.

Since his termination, Ridgeway has actively, but unsuccessfully sought to obtain reemployment. [Dkt. #1, Compl.,¶58]. Ridgeway asserts, on informationand belief, that RBS employees informed prospective employers, prior to the initiation of the current lawsuit, that Ridgeway was suing RBS. Id. at ¶59.

Ridgeway also alleges that since his termination that "on information and belief, RBS employees have informed prospective employers that Ridgeway is suing RBS . . ." to retaliate against him for filing a complaint with the Connecticut Department of Labor seeking to...