Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reyes v. St. Joseph Living Center, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

March 7, 2017

ANA REYES, Plaintiff,
v.
ST. JOSEPH'S LIVING CENTER, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          WARREN W. EGINTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is an employment discrimination action by plaintiff Ana Reyes against defendant St. Joseph's Living Center. Plaintiff alleges unlawful termination based on race, color, and national origin in violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 46a-60(a)(1) (Count I); and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Count II). Defendant has moved for summary judgment on both counts. For the following reasons, defendant's motion will be granted.

         BACKGROUND

         The following background was gleaned from the parties' statements of fact, affidavits, deposition transcripts, and other exhibit documentation.

         Defendant operates a long-term nursing facility in Windham, Connecticut. Defendant hired plaintiff, a Hispanic Puerto Rican of brown complexion, in March 2012 to work as a certified nurses' assistant (“CNA”) on the third shift. Charge Nurse Diane Jeske served as plaintiff's supervisor.

         On October 18, 2014, plaintiff worked her 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. During the course of the shift, Kristina Rivera, another CNA, reported to Jeske that plaintiff had been in a resident's room for over an hour. Plaintiff asserts that she was in the room to prevent the resident from falling out of bed, but Rivera provided a written statement indicating that plaintiff slept in a recliner for nearly 1 hour and forty-five minutes.

         At the end the shift Jeske spoke to plaintiff about the report of her sleeping. Subsequently, plaintiff met with Pat Duffy, Director of Nursing. Duffy informed plaintiff that she had received a complaint and that sleeping on the job was unacceptable. Plaintiff again denied that she had been sleeping.

         Plaintiff asserts that Jeske walked into the dark room where plaintiff was sitting and found plaintiff to be awake, so Jeske knew that plaintiff was not sleeping. Moreover, plaintiff highlights that Rivera's written statement does not state that Rivera actually saw plaintiff sleeping. Nevertheless, defendant terminated plaintiff's employment on October 25, 2014, based on the reports that plaintiff was sleeping during her shift.

         Plaintiff contends that she was the only person of color working her shift. Defendant asserts that Rivera, who reported plaintiff, is also Hispanic.

         DISCUSSION

         A motion for summary judgment will be granted where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). "Only when reasonable minds could not differ as to the import of the evidence is summary judgment proper." Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 849 (1991).

         The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of any material factual issue genuinely in dispute. American International Group, Inc. v. London American International Corp., 664 F.2d 348, 351 (2d Cir. 1981). In determining whether a genuine factual issue exists, the court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

         If a nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of his case with respect to which he has the burden of proof, then summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. If the nonmoving party submits evidence which is "merely colorable, " legally sufficient opposition to the motion for summary judgment is not met. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

         Title VII and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.