United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
employment discrimination action, Plaintiff Samantha Jansson
alleges that she was wrongfully terminated by her two former
employers, Stamford Hospital (including Stamford Health,
Inc., doing business as Stamford Hospital) and Stamford
Anesthesiology Services P.C. ("SAS"). The Court has
recounted the facts of the case in its previous rulings,
familiarity with which is assumed. Recently, the Court
granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's third
motion to amend her complaint. Jansson v. Stamford
Health, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-260 (CSH), 2018 WL 1557250, at
*1 (D. Conn. Mar. 30, 2018). Plaintiff now moves for
reconsideration of that ruling on two Counts of her
Complaint. The Ruling resolves that motion.
standard for granting such a motion is strict, and
reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving
party can point to controlling decisions or data that the
court overlooked - matters, in other words, that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the
court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)(citing Schonberger v.
Serchuk, 742 F.Supp. 108, 119 (S.D.N.Y.1990); Adams
v. United States, 686 F.Supp. 417, 418 (S.D.N.Y.1988)).
case at bar, Plaintiff asserts that the Court failed to take
into account the general provisions of the Connecticut
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
("CHCRO"), which include a definition of
"person" that should be applied in the CFEPA
provision at Conn. Gen. Stat. §
46a-60(a)(5). That definition states:
(14) "Person" means one or more individuals,
partnerships, associations, corporations, limited liability
companies, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in
bankruptcy, receivers and the state and all political
subdivisions and agencies thereof;
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-51(14). Plaintiff argues that in
light of the application of this general definition to the
provision at issue, the Court's ruling, dismissing as
futile her proposed Counts Ten and Fourteen, may be altered.
Court examines each of these dismissed counts in light of
this provision Plaintiff now presents.
Count Ten - Aiding and Abetting - CFEPA -
seeks to assert a claim against VantagePoint under former
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 (a)(5), which provides:
It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this
section: . . .
For any person, whether an employer or an employee
or not, to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of
any act declared to be a discriminatory ...