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.

Jimenez v. Chubb & Son

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

November 30, 2018

JESSICA JIMENEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
CHUBB & SON, a division of FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and KELLY SERVICES, INC., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          WARREN W. EGINTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jessica Jimenez alleges pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”), and interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Defendant Chubb & Son has moved for summary judgment on all counts against it. For the following reasons, defendant's motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

         BACKGROUND

         Chubb is a property and casualty insurance company with an office in Simsbury, Connecticut. Chubb contracted with the Kelly Services staffing company to fill Deductible Tracking Unit (“DTU”) Analyst positions at Chubb's Simsbury office. Kelly Services assigned Kerry Bailey, a Vendor Management Specialist, to manage its staffing business with Chubb.

         Kelley Services assigned plaintiff to be a DTU Analyst at Chubb in April 2012. As a DTU Analyst, plaintiff received and reviewed invoices from law firms and processed documentation relating to insurance policies. Accuracy was a key function of the job.

         Plaintiff's work at Chubb was managed by Helen Yang, a Deductible Tracking Supervisor. Yang was in turn supervised by Senior Deductible Tracking Supervisor, Nicole Rankin.

         Plaintiff was counseled in January 2014 and January 2015 about tardiness, attendance, and work-accuracy. In one instance, plaintiff processed the same invoice twice, resulting in a $9, 000 overpayment, but failed to correct the error without having to be reminded by Yang. In another, plaintiff failed to properly bill an insured, which required a request for reimbursement to correct the error.

         In March 2015, plaintiff submitted a request for pregnancy leave pursuant to the FMLA. The request was approved. In May 2015, Chubb decided to deny plaintiff a raise in pay.

         Plaintiff's leave began on June 15, 2015, with an expected end date of September 21, 2015.

         Rankin communicated a list of performance concerns to Bailey by email dated September 9, 2015. Plaintiff contends that, by that time, the vacancy created by her pregnancy leave had been filled, so plaintiff had already been replaced. It was not until September 2015 that plaintiff contacted Kelly Services about returning to work at Chubb in her role as a DTU Analyst.

         Plaintiff maintains that she never received advanced warning of her termination and that she was never threatened with termination during various counseling sessions. Plaintiff asserts that her work mistakes never led to additional or special training. Moreover, she defends many of the absences on her record as being due to her pregnancy. Finally, although Chubb directly supervised and controlled plaintiff's day-to-day work assignments, plaintiff contends that no Chubb employee ever informed plaintiff that Chubb decided to end plaintiff's employment because of performance deficiencies. Instead, plaintiff was informed by email that Chubb had discontinued her position, when in fact, Chubb was looking to fill DTU Analyst positions during the time that plaintiff was returning from maternity leave.

         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 ...


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.