Turner v. EASTCONN Reg'l Educ. Serv. Ctr.

REBECCA A. TURNER, Plaintiff, v. EASTCONN REGIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER; PAULA COLEN; STEVEN WAPEN;DORIS DYER; THOMAS CRONIN; and RONALD MORIN, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-00788 (VLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

December 2, 2013

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkt. #29]

I. Introduction

The Plaintiff, Rebecca Turner, brings this action against Defendants, EASTCONN Regional Education Service Center ("EASTCONN"), Paula Colen, Steven Wapen, Doris Dyer, Thomas Cronin, and Ronald Morin alleging various violations related to alleged employment discrimination. Defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted with respect to several counts in the Complaint, including: Count I, violations of Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act ("CFEPA"); Count II, violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., ("Title VII") and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) ("PDA"); Count V, violations of theFamily Medical Leave Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2611, et seq. ("FMLA"); and Count VI, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the claims arising from federal statutes and all other claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to proceeding in state court.

II. Background

EASTCONN is a regional educational service center established in accordance with Connecticut state law. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-66a. The other defendants at all relevant times were employees of EASTCONN, holding various supervisory positions over the plaintiff: Colen is and was the Executive Director, Wapen is and was the Director of Human Resources, Dyer is and was the Autism Clinical Director or Director of Autism and Clinical Services, Cronin is and was the Director of Education Services, and Morin is and was the Director of Special Services. [Dkt. #29-2, Defendant's 56(a)(1) Statement, ¶¶ 2-6].

The plaintiff began her employment with EASTCONN on November 4, 2008 as an instructional assistant, and on April 8, 2009, she was hired as a long-term substitute in EASTCONN's Autism Program, a program that serves children with autism spectrum disorders and other developmental impairments. [Id. at ¶ 8]. Shortly thereafter, on July 6, 2009, she was hired to work as a full-time teacher in the Autism Program. [Id.].

For the 2009-2010 academic year, the plaintiff held dual teaching certifications form the State Department of Education: pre-kindergarten through kindergarten special education instruction and pre-kindergarten through third-grade regulareducation instruction. [Id. at ¶ 9, Dkt. #29-11, Deposition of Rebecca Turner, 55:19-25]. Shortly after she was hired as a full-time teacher, the plaintiff joined the EASTCONN Federation of Teachers - the local union responsible for representing members of the teachers' bargaining unit at EASTCONN. [Dkt. #29-2, ¶ 10; #29-11, 56:1-6]. Even though the plaintiff was hired as a full-time teacher, she never became a tenured teacher and, therefore, never received the benefits that a tenured position provides. [Dkt. #29-2, ¶ 10(b)].

For the 2009-2010 school year, the Autism Program serviced three students ranging in age from seven to nine or ten. [Dkt. #29-11, 51:20-25]. The students were at different points on the autism spectrum, but all generally exhibited aggressive behavior at various times. [Id. at 53:1-14]. During that year, the students were taught by two special education teachers, one of whom was the plaintiff, and assisted by two paraprofessionals. [Id. at 45:5-15]. Generally, each classroom in the autism program had one lead teacher responsible for critical administrative duties and case management tasks; the lead teacher also did not provide direct, one on one instruction, but gave group instruction to the entire class. [Dkt. #30-11, II ¶¶ 2-3; Dkt. #29-11, 152:5-21]. The other teachers and/or paraprofessionals were required to provide one on one instruction to the students. [Dkt. #30-11, II ¶¶ 2-3]. Teachers were required to respond to students who were often upset and reactive. [Dkt. # 30-4, EASTCONN Annual Appraisal Report, p. 4].

As a regular full-time teacher not designated as the lead teacher, two-thirds of the plaintiff's time was spent providing direct instruction to students in theclassroom while the remaining third was spent on administrative tasks such as lesson planning, evaluations and assessments. [Id. at 49:9-12, 84:3-9]. During the course of this instruction, teachers, including the plaintiff, were often, even sometimes daily, called upon to restrain students who had become aggressive. [Id. at 52:15-24]. Restraining the students posed physical risks; the plaintiff admitted that she was injured while restraining a student, but the extent of the injuries suffered thus far were admittedly minor, including just a "scratch." [Id. at 53:5-15].

While serving as a full-time teacher, the plaintiff became pregnant with twins due on December 26, 2010, but ultimately delivered on November 24, 2010. [Dkt. #1, Complaint, ¶ 9]. In April 2010, the plaintiff notified Dyer, her immediate supervisor, of her pregnancy. [Dkt. #29-11, 62:9-13]. Furthermore, on April 26, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a doctor's note to Dyer stating "[t]his is to confirm that the [plaintiff] is under my care and currently receiving treatment. Please excuse her from restraining activities until further notice." [Dkt. #29-9, Doctor's Note dated April 7, 2010, p. 1]. As a result of this notice, the plaintiff was not required to restrain students for the duration of her pregnancy. [Dkt. #29-11, 65:1-5]. The plaintiff also alleges that she began to notice Dyer treating her differently after submitting this note. For example, the plaintiff stated that when she gave this first note, Dyer asked if she "could even work?" [Dkt. #29-2, ¶ 65]. Subsequently, the plaintiff alleged that Dyer remarked that the plaintiff did not "even look pregnant," and Dyer peaked into the plaintiff's classroom windows while the plaintiff was on her lunch break making personal phone calls. [Id.].Even so, on May 28, 2010, at the conclusion of the 2009-2010 academic year, the plaintiff received positive feedback from Dyer in her annual evaluation. Specifically, Dyer noted that the plaintiff "is to be commended in several areas. She is perceptive and brings an attention to details [sic] to discussions and planning that is helpful. Her calm manner is beneficial in a classroom that often needs to respond to students who are upset and reactive. And she is a supportive and encouraging team member." [Dkt. # 30-4, EASTCONN Annual Appraisal Report, p. 4].

Following the conclusion of the academic year, the plaintiff worked in EASTCONN's academic summer program as a lead teacher and was in charge of the summer program. [Dkt. #29-11, 65:23-67:23]. After the summer program ended, the plaintiff returned to her position as a regular teacher in the autism program, and Ms. Buchanan was designated as her lead teacher for the 2010-2011 year. [Dkt. #29-2, ¶ 48]. On September 8, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a second doctor's note to Dyer that stated "Rebecca Turner is pregnant with twins due 12/26/2010 and should not be working closely with children who can become aggressive." [Dkt. #1, ¶ 23; Dkt. #29-9, Doctor's Note dated September 7, 2010, p. 2]. On September 9, 2010, Dyer told the plaintiff that EASTCONN's Human Resources' personnel were discussing the situation, and on September 9 and 10, EASTCONN temporarily accommodated the plaintiff's condition by assigning her exclusively administrative tasks. [[Dkt. #1, ¶¶ 27, 28].

Dyer next met with the plaintiff on September 13 to inform the plaintiff that she would be required to take FMLA leave starting on September 27 becauseEASTCONN was only able to accommodate the plaintiff's new restriction for two weeks. [Id. at ¶ 29].

On September 14, the plaintiff spoke with Wapen who told her that he understood there was "non-classroom" work available, but that the amount was miniscule, and there was no safe place in the classroom for her to work given the students' propensity for aggressive behavior. [Dkt. #29-11, 91:16-92:5; Dkt. #30-10, Deposition of Steven G. Wapen, 90:20-91:7]. On September 15, the plaintiff contacted the union regarding the pregnancy-related employment issues at EASTCONN, but neither the plaintiff nor the union filed a grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement entered into between EASTCONN and the union. [Dkt. #29-11, 95:9-13, 103:4-7; Dkt. #1, ¶ 34]. Moreover, the union representative told the plaintiff that it was her understanding that if the plaintiff could not perform essential functions of her employment and there was no other position available at EASTCONN, she would need to take FMLA-designated leave. [Dkt. #29-11, 97:2-23].

Between September 20 and October 1, 2010, the plaintiff discussed with Dyer and Cronin her concerns about not having sufficient FMLA leave after the delivery of her children if she was forced to take leave starting at the end of September. [Dkt. 29-2, ¶¶ 41-44; Dkt. #30-11, II ¶ 6]. The plaintiff alleged that when meeting with Cronin, she asked for the possibility of obtaining additional FMLA leave once the twelve weeks expired, but he said that her request would be denied. [Dkt. #29-11, 102:12-24]. Cronin further advised the plaintiff to obtain a new doctor's note stating that the plaintiff would be allowed to continue workinguntil her projected due date. [Dkt. #1, ¶ 41; Dkt. #29-2, ¶ 44]. Accordingly, on September 27, the date she was supposed to start FMLA leave, the plaintiff submitted a third doctor's note which stated that the plaintiff could ...