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.

Jansson v. Stamford Health, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

April 11, 2018

SAMANTHA JANSSON, Plaintiff,
v.
STAMFORD HEALTH, INC. d/b/a STAMFORD HOSPITAL, STAMFORD HOSPITAL, STAMFORD ANESTHESIOLOGY SERVICES, P.C., VANTAGEPOINT LLC d/b/a VANTAGEPOINT HEALTHCARE ADVISORS, MICHAEL COADY, SHARON KIELY, SAL MANCINO and THERESA BOWLING, Defendants.

          RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 211]

          CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         In this 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.

         II. DISCUSSION

         "The 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)).

         In the 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).[1] 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.

         The Court examines each of these dismissed counts in light of this provision Plaintiff now presents.

         A. Count Ten - Aiding and Abetting - CFEPA - VantagePoint

         Plaintiff 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 ...

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.