Rodrigues v. Conn. Container Corp.

1

DENNIS RODRIGUES, Plaintiff, v. CONNECTICUT CONTAINER CORP. D/B/A UNICORR PAGKAGING GROUP, Defendant.

Civil No. 3:20-CV-00294(JCH)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

March 22, 2022

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO 30)

Janet C. Hall, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Dennis Rodrigues (“Rodrigues”) brings claims for disability discrimination and retaliation against defendant Connecticut Container Corp., doing business as Unicorr Packaging Group (“Unicorr”). Rodrigues alleges that Unicorr committed the following violations when the company terminated him in 2019: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, section 12101 of title 42 of the United States Code (the “ADA”); (2) disability discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, section 46a-60(b)(1) of the Connecticut General Statutes (“CFEPA”); and (3) retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, section 2615 of title 29 of the United States Code (the “FMLA”).

Now before the court is Unicorr's Motion for Summary Judgment, see Unicorr Mot. for Summary J. (Doc. No 30), which Rodrigues opposes. See Rodrigues Opp'n (Doc. No. 34). For the reasons discussed below, Unicorr's Motion is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Rodrigues began working at Unicorr, a packaging manufacturer with a plant in North Haven, Connecticut, in 1990. See Rodrigues Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement of Facts at ¶¶ 1, 4 (Doc. No. 35) (“Rodrigues SOF”); Unicorr Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Facts at ¶¶ 1, 4 (Doc. No. 30-2) (“Unicorr SOF”). Rodrigues has two serious health conditions. In 2017, he was diagnosed with Crohn's Disease, and he began receiving infusions that required him to be out of work for an afternoon every eight weeks. Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 29-30; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 29-30. He also received a diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia (“BPH”) at the end of March or beginning of April 2019, which led to two hospitalizations. Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 29, 32; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 29, 32.

Over the course of his near thirty years of employment at Unicorr, Rodrigues worked in several roles, but in 2018 and 2019, he served as a Continuous Improvement Lead. Rodrigues SOF at ¶ 5; Unicorr SOF at ¶ 5. In 2018, Rodrigues was supervised by Matt Fritzeen (“Fritzeen”), the Plant Manager. Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 8, 10; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 8, 10. Fritzeen consistently gave Rodrigues positive reviews. See Rodrigues AMF at ¶ 24; 2018 Performance Appraisal (Doc. No. 34-11); 2014 Performance Appraisal (Do. No. 34-8); 2015 Performance Appraisal (Doc. No. 34-9); 2016 Performance Appraisal (Doc. No. 34-10). These positive reviews were not out of the ordinary for Rodrigues, who never received a negative performance review while he was employed at Unicorr. See Rodrigues Depo. at 17; Perkins Depo. at 41. At the end of 2018, Fritzeen left Unicorr, and Hap Perkins (“Perkins”), President and Owner of Unicorr, stepped in as acting Plant Manager. Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 9-10; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 8-10. Perkins felt that the North Haven plant was in need of improvements. See Perkins Aff. at ¶ 8 (Doc. No. 30-3) Nonetheless, Perkins approved a five percent raise for Rodrigues, although Fritzeen had initially recommended the raise and Perkins noted in a February 5, 2019 email that he was “not in agreement with these” and “didn't get to give feedback.” Rodrigues SOF at ¶ 12; Unicorr SOF at ¶ 12; Perkins Feb. 5 Email (Doc. No. 30-3 at 8).

Rodrigues' working relationship with Perkins soured when, on February 6, 2019, a co-worker, Bob Clark (“Clark”), accidentally forwarded to Perkins an email chain in which Rodrigues and Clark criticized Perkins. See Rodrigues SOF at ¶ 13; Unicorr SOF at ¶ 13; Clark and Rodrigues Email Chain (Doc. No. 34-7). Clark started the email chain while in a management meeting with Perkins. In the exchange, Clark told Rodrigues that Perkins hadn't “said one good thing since [the meeting] started” and that Perkins “told everyone here he will be the acting [Plant Manager] for a while . . . he feels he is the only one that can fix the problems”, adding “OMG.” See Clark and Rodrigues Email Chain. In response, Rodrigues quipped, “[n]ice . . . it must be like watching [T]rump[']s [S]tate of the [U]nion last night”, to which Clark replied, “[j]ust as bad.” Id. Clark then forwarded the chain to Perkins. Id.

Thirty minutes after receiving the chain, Perkins forwarded it to Rodrigues along with an email reading merely, “[w]hoops.” Id. Rodrigues responded with an apology, but added that he stood by his criticism of Perkins, stating, “when you're told every[ ]day that we are no good and we get nothing done and we are too slow it drags us down . . . I have been working very hard to learn and implement improvements in this plant and I feel I did a hell of a job.” Id. Perkins forwarded the email chain, along with Rodrigues' response, to Karl Ohaus (“Ohaus”), a consultant who advised Unicorr on culture in the North Haven plant, who encouraged Perkins to “work[ ] thru [sic] this bump with Dennis and find[ ] a way to see, learn and act together.” See Perkins Feb. 7 Email to Ohaus (Doc. No. 30-5 at pp. 27-28).

The parties disagree as to whether Perkins determined that he would terminate Rodrigues as a result of receiving the email chain. It is undisputed that Perkins terminated Rodrigues' co-worker, Clark, on February 7, one day after seeing the emails, although the parties contest whether Perkins merely accepted Clark's resignation which he had previously tendered. See Rodrigues SOF at ¶ 19; Unicorr SOF at ¶ 19. On the same day, Perkins, Director of Human Resources Kevin Boyle (“Boyle”), and Rodrigues met to allow Rodrigues to defend his position. In the meeting, Rodrigues explained why he sent the email and shared his thoughts on Perkins' management. Rodrigues SOF at ¶ 20; Unicorr SOF at ¶ 20. Perkins replied that the situation was serious. Id. However, Perkins did not terminate Rodrigues on that day. See Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 20; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 20. While Unicorr contends that Perkins decided to fire Rodrigues after receiving the email and “never wavered from” that intention, see Unicorr SOF at ¶ 16, his deposition testimony and his contemporaneous emails reflect a lack of certainty. See Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 15-18; see, e.g., Perkins Feb. 6 Email (Doc. No. 30-5 at 9) (“this could be cause with no severance” for firing Rodrigues); Perkins Feb. 7 Email (Doc. No. 30-5 at 27) (“[s]poke with [Rodrigues], haven't decided . . . .”); Perkins Depo. at 61 (stating that he was he was “pretty well decided” on February 6 but was “maybe trying to figure out why [he] wouldn't” fire Rodrigues); id. at 72 (he “[h]adn't made a final decision, but [his] intent was always to fire [Rodrigues]”). No. documents in the record evidence exactly when Perkins' decided to terminate Rodrigues, id. at 73, but Perkins claims that he spoke about his plan in undocumented phone calls and that he “never wavered” in his conviction to terminate Rodrigues. Id. at 73, 76.

After the email chain, Rodrigues continued working for Unicorr, but his relationship with Perkins had changed. See Rodrigues SOF at ¶ 21; Unicorr SOF at ¶ 21. Then, a month later, in March 2019, Rodrigues started experiencing severe symptoms of BPH. See Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 20; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 20. Suffering from urinary retention that prevented him from going to the bathroom, he was admitted to the emergency room and missed four days of work from Monday, March 18 through Thursday, March 21. Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 34; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 34; Rodrigues Depo. at 38. Rodrigues emailed Boyle in Human Resources on Sunday, March 17, to inform him that he was in the ER and would be out of work until the following Thursday, following up on March 18 to report that he would hopefully be in on Friday, March 22. Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 35-36; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 35-36. Boyle failed to respond to either email. Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 37; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 37. Rodrigues returned to work on Friday, when he informed Boyle that he was having “bladder retention” issues and that he had “had a catheter all week.” Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 35-36; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 35-36; Rodrigues Depo. at 67 (Doc. No. 34-4). For his part, Boyle denies that Rodrigues ever told him why he needed medical leave. See Boyle Depo. at 81-82 (Doc. No. 34-3).

Rodrigues was again out of work in early April 2019, missing Wednesday, April 3 through Friday, April 5 due to prostate issues. Rodrigues SOF at ¶ 38; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 38. He again emailed Boyle to inform him that he was seeing a doctor, and Boyle again failed to respond. Rodrigues SOF at ¶ 39; Unicorr SOF at ¶ 39. During the course of Rodrigues' medical leaves in March and April of 2019, Boyle forwarded four emails to Perkins regarding Rodrigues' absences, but Perkins and Rodrigues never personally communicated about his prostate illness or absences. See Rodrigues SOF at ¶ 40-42; Unicorr SOF at ¶ 40-42. The parties dispute whether Perkins was aware that Rodrigues had prostate issues and whether he knew how much work Rodrigues missed. See Rodrigues SOF at ¶¶ 45-47; Unicorr SOF at ¶¶ 45-47. The parties also disagree as to whether Boyle knew that Rodrigues had Crohn's disease for which he required bi-monthly infusions. See Rodrigues SOF at ¶ 46; Unicorr SOF at ¶ 46.

When Rodrigues returned to work on April 8, he testifies that his nameplate had been removed from his mailbox. See Rodrigues SOF at ¶ 49; Rodrigues Statement of Additional Material Facts at ¶ 63 (“Rodrigues AMF”). He also contends that Perkins stopped inviting him to meetings and that Perkins “baited” him to quit his job by telling him, “you know...