United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO
SEAL/REDACT NON-PARTY NAMES IN COMPLAINT
Victor
A. Bolden United States District Judge
On
December 5, 2018, Peter Kleftogiannis sued his former
employer, Inline Plastics Corporation (“Inline”
or “Defendant”), alleging four causes of action
arising from his termination: (1) unlawful discrimination
based on age in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (the
“ADEA”); (2) unlawful discrimination based on age
in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices
Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 (the
“CFEPA”); (3) defamation, in violation of
Connecticut law; and (4) negligent infliction of emotional
distress, in violation of Connecticut law. Complaint, dated
Dec. 5, 2018 (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, ¶¶
24-35.
On
February 4, 2019, Inline moved to dismiss Counts Three and
Four of the Complaint, alleging defamation and negligent
infliction of emotional distress, for failure to state claim.
Motion to Dismiss, dated Feb. 4, 2019 (“Def.'s
Mot.”), ECF No. 12; Memorandum of Law in Support of
Def.'s Mot., dated Feb. 4, 2019 (“Def.'s
Mem.”), annexed to Def.'s Mot.
That
same day, Inline moved to seal or redact the names of
twenty-five non-management employees specifically listed in
the Complaint in this employment discrimination action.
Motion to Seal Non-Party Names in Plaintiff's Complaint,
dated Feb. 4, 2019 (“Redaction Mot.”), ECF No.
11; Memorandum of Law in Support of Redaction Mot., dated
Feb. 4, 2019 (“Def.'s Redaction Mem.”), ECF
No. 11-1, at 2-6.
On
February 9, 2019, Mr. Kleftogiannis opposed Inline's
motion to dismiss. Objection to Motion to Dismiss, dated Feb.
9, 2019 (“Pl.'s Opp.”), ECF No. 17;
Memorandum of Law in Support of Pl.'s Opp., dated Feb. 9,
2019 (“Pl.'s Mem.”), annexed to Pl.'s
Opp., ECF No. 17-1.
On
February 10, 2019, Mr. Kleftogiannis opposed Inline's
motion to seal or redact the non-party names in the
Complaint. Objection to Redaction Mot., dated Feb. 10, 2019
(“Redaction Opp.”), ECF No. 18; Memorandum of Law
in Support of Redaction Opp., dated Feb. 10, 2019, ECF No.
18-1 (“Pl.'s Redaction Mem.”).
Because
both of these motions concern the Complaint and are fully
briefed, the Court considers them together in this
opinion.[1]
For the
reasons explained below, Inline's motion to dismiss is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The
motion to dismiss is denied with respect to Plaintiff's
claim of defamation (Count Three), but granted with respect
to Plaintiff's claim of negligent infliction of emotional
distress (Count Four). Inline's motion to redact
non-party names in the Complaint is GRANTED.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.
Factual Allegations[2]
Mr.
Kleftogiannis, a fifty-year-old man, is a former employee of
Inline, a corporation based in Shelton, Connecticut. Compl.
¶¶ 1-2. Inline allegedly manufactures plastic food
containers, and has more than 250 employees. Id.
¶¶ 8, 2.
Inline
allegedly hired Mr. Kleftogiannis as a warehouse operator in
Shelton, Connecticut on March 4, 1991. Id. ¶ 7.
Over
several years, Mr. Kleftogiannis allegedly worked in several
positions for Inline, culminating in a final position as
Manufacturing Shift Supervisor, a salaried position in which
he allegedly supervised 45 to 50 employees. See Id.
¶ 7. Mr. Kleftogiannis alleges that he consistently
received raises and above average performance reviews.
Id. ¶ 10.
At some
point before June 2017, Mr. Kleftogiannis allegedly
complained about “being targeted for poor treatment
because of his age” to Plant Manager, Vanessa Siveyer.
Compl. ¶ 11.
In June
2017, Inline allegedly demoted Mr. Kleftogiannis “from
the position of Production Control Manager after he expressed
displeasure with the position.” Compl. ¶ 12. Mr.
Kleftogiannis alleges that he was “not put through any
disciplinary procedure, ” and that the reasons
“given for the demotion were minor and
pretextual.” Id. Instead, he alleges that the
“actual reason for the demotion was discriminat[ion] on
the basis of his age.” Id.
The
following month, Mr. Kleftogiannis alleges that he learned
from multiple co-workers that Inline had created a
“dinosaur list” of employees that management
“felt were too old to work in the new company culture,
” and that management “targeted those individuals
because of their age for termination.” Id.
¶¶ 13-14.
Two
months later, in September 2017, Mr. Kleftogiannis alleges
that two employees he had disciplined complained about him to
Plant Manager Siveyer. Id. ¶ 15. Ms. Siveyer
allegedly spoke with them for “a grand total of 5
minutes” before requesting an investigation of Mr.
Kleftogiannis. Id.
On
September 8, 2017, Inline allegedly suspended Mr.
Kleftogiannis pending that investigation. Id. ¶
16. Mr. Kleftogiannis alleges that Inline's Human
Resources Manager, Danielle Chateaune, conducted a
“sham investigation” in “an effort to cover
up planned discrimination against the Plaintiff on the basis
of his age.” Id. ¶ 17.
In
2017, from September 8 to September 13, Ms. Chateaune
allegedly interviewed at least fifteen employees “in an
effort to support a decision to terminate” him on the
basis of his age. Id. ¶¶ 20, 18. She
allegedly did this, even though she was aware that
“certain of the employees had an axe to grind”
with him “because he had disciplined them in the
past.” Id. ¶ 18. Based on the interviews,
Ms. Chateaune allegedly compiled a 17-page report “that
included multiple false defamatory statements” about
Mr. Kleftogiannis “including but not limited to him
being unprofessional, swearing, having an affair or multiple
affairs, failing to buy pizza for employees, failing to buy
birthday cake for employees, not caring about his job,
picking on people, being disrespectful, failing to do his job
properly, intimidating employees, [and] having a bad
attitude.” Id. ¶ 20.
She
allegedly wrote this report, despite the fact that her
investigation “did not provide just cause for
terminating [him] and in fact disclosed just minor complaints
that were mainly based on rumors” about his personal
life, id. ¶ 20, “to provide pretextual
reasons to terminate” him, id. ¶ 21. Mr.
Kleftogiannis also alleges that all employee names in the
report were redacted “to aid in providing a pretextual
report to terminate the Plaintiff on the basis of his
age.” Id. ¶ 22.
On
September 18, 2017, Plant Manager Siveyer and Steven Welford
allegedly called Mr. Kleftogiannis and terminated his
employment. Id. ¶ 23. During that call, Mr.
Welford allegedly stated that Mr. Kleftogiannis was
“not the right fit” for the job. Id. Mr.
Kleftogiannis alleges that all the reasons given for his
termination “were pretextual and defamatory and
provided to cover up discriminatory motives.”
Id.
B.
Procedural History
On
December 5, 2018, Mr. Kleftogiannis sued Inline, alleging
that (1) Inline discriminated against him on the basis of
age, in violation of the ADEA and the CFEPA, id.
¶¶ 24-25 (Counts One and Two); (2) Inline defamed
him through the publication of reasons for his employment, as
stated in the internal report, to his co-workers and outside
third parties who inquired about why he was no longer
employed with Inline, in violation of Connecticut law,
id. ¶¶ 26-29 (Count Three); and (3) Inline
negligently inflicted severe emotional distress on him
through their discrimination, defamation, and wrongful
termination of his employment, id. ¶¶
30-35. Mr. Kleftogiannis alleges that his “career path
has been forever altered negatively and he has lost
opportunities for employment[, ] and he has suffered
emotional distress” due to Inline's conduct.
Id. ¶ 36.
On
February 4, 2019, Inline moved to dismiss Mr.
Kleftogiannis's defamation and negligent infliction of
emotional distress claims under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), Def.'s Mot, arguing that: (1) Mr.
Kleftogiannis failed to state a claim for defamation because
the statements contained in Ms. Chateaune's
post-investigation report were protected by the
intra-corporate communications privilege, the allegation that
the report was published to third parties is unsubstantiated,
and the allegations of damages are mere threadbare recitals,
id. at 3-4; and (2) Mr. Kleftogiannis failed to
state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress
claim because any alleged distress was not a result of
conduct by Inline during the termination process itself,
id. at 5-6.
That
same day, Inline moved to seal or redact the names of
twenty-five non-management employees specifically listed in
the Complaint in this employment discrimination action.
Redaction Mot.; Def.'s Redaction Mem.
On
February 9, 2019, Mr. Kleftogiannis objected to Inline's
motion to dismiss his defamation claim, arguing that his
“allegation of damages [was] sufficient” and that
the investigation report had been shared with
“co-workers and outside third parties, ”
constituting defamation. Pl.'s Mem. at 4-5. Mr.
Kleftogiannis also argued that the termination process began
with his demotion in June 2017 and continued through
Inline's “sham investigation” and his
termination. Id. at 7. Given this extended
termination process, Mr. Kleftogiannis argues that Inline
“should have realized that its conduct created an
unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and . . .
illness or bodily harm.” Id. at 6.
That
same day, Mr. Kleftogiannis also objected to Inline's
motion to seal or redact non-party names from the Complaint.
On
February 25, 2019, Inline replied to Mr. Kleftogiannis's
oppositions to both motions. Reply to Pl.'s Opp., dated
Feb. 25, 2019 (“Dismissal Reply”), ECF No. 20;
Reply to Redaction Opp., dated Feb. 25, 2019
(“Redaction Reply”), ECF No. 18.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A.
...