United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
KARI
A. DOOLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
employment discrimination action arises out of the
termination of Michael Rubin (“Rubin”) during a
reduction in force (“RIF”) at ADT, LLC
(“ADT”) in 2016. Rubin asserts claims for
disability and age discrimination under the Connecticut Fair
Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-51 et
seq. (“CFEPA”). ADT has moved for summary
judgment as to both claims. For the reasons set forth in this
decision, ADT's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.
Factual
Background[1]
Rubin
initially worked as a service technician and supervisor for a
series of companies that were ultimately acquired by
ADT's former parent company in 1998. (Def.'s SMF at
¶ 2.) Prior to this acquisition, Rubin was counseled for
performance deficiencies and demoted from a supervisor
position back to a technician position. (Id. at
¶ 3.) Rubin was later promoted back to a supervisor
position shortly before ADT's acquisition of the
predecessor company. (Id.)
On
April 25, 2012, Rubin (then age 54) was promoted to the
position of Installation Team Manager in the Shelton office
of ADT's Connecticut/Western Massachusetts market area.
(Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.) During 2012, Rubin began
to experience balance issues. (Id. at ¶ 12;
see also Plf.'s Response to Def.'s SMF at
¶ 12.) Rubin recalls one episode in the summer of 2012
when he fell, but it was not at work. (Def.'s SMF at
¶ 13.)
On July
15, 2013, Rubin received a written warning because his
technicians were refusing to pick up additional work, and
Rubin could not be reached to address the problem.
(Id. at ¶ 14.) In response, Rubin filed a
rebuttal in which he explained that the telephone call at
issue occurred on a Saturday while he was having a serious
conversation with his father. (Plf.'s Dep. at 59-60.) He
maintains that he called back as soon as his conversation
with his father was over, which was approximately an hour
after receiving the initial call. (Id.)
The
following month, on August 9, 2013, Rubin was coached for
below standards mobility utilization, not fulfilling his
administrative requirements, and not updating safety websites
on a monthly basis. (Def.'s SMF at ¶ 15; Def.'s
Ex. 13.) On October 11, 2013, Rubin was placed on a
Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) due to his
continued failure to meet the job requirements of an
Installation Team Manager. (Def.'s SMF at ¶ 16;
Def.'s Ex. 14.) In the PIP, Rubin's supervisor noted
that he had previously communicated with Rubin concerning
“stranded capacity jobs, techs schedules not being full
and backlog management.” (Def.'s Ex. 14.) He
further noted that although Rubin had received coaching
regarding his response to an injured employee in July, Rubin
had recently failed to report another injury in a timely
fashion. (Id.)
In
2013, Rubin was also misdiagnosed with multiple sclerosis
before being re-diagnosed with isolated myelitis. (Def.'s
SMF at ¶ 17.) Rubin did not receive any medication for
his condition. (Id.) Although Rubin never reported
his medical condition to human resources, he did tell his
colleagues at ADT about his health issues and began using a
cane while in the field. (Def.'s SMF at ¶¶
18-19; Plf.'s Dep. at 30-35.)
On
January 22, 2015, one of Rubin's team members was injured
while using a personal knife in violation of company policy.
(Def.'s SMF at ¶ 24.) During a review of this
incident on March 19, 2015, Rubin was reminded that personal
tools, such as knives or box cutters, were not approved for
use by technicians. (Id. at ¶ 25; Def.'s
Ex. 17.)
In May
2015, Anthony Peluso became the Area General Manager and
Rubin's supervisor. (Def.'s SMF at ¶ 29.)
Thereafter, on May 19, 2015, another team member under
Rubin's supervision was injured while using an
unauthorized knife. (Id. at ¶ 27.) The injury
occurred during a safety audit and in front of the safety
director. (Peluso Dep. at 39; see also Plf.'s
Dep. at 82; Stewart Dep. at 22.) In response, Peluso issued
Rubin a “final warning” and admonished him
concerning the need to improve. (Def.'s SMF at ¶ 28;
Def.'s Ex. 17.)
Around
this time, Susan Masella, an installation coordinator in the
Shelton office, heard Rubin discuss his doctor's
appointments and treatment plan with Peluso. (Masella Dep. at
33.) She further heard Peluso make comments to Rubin and
others in the office regarding Rubin's gait and
instability “in a joking fashion” or in a
“condescending manner.” (Id. at 13, 31;
see also Id. at 25.) Masella thought that Peluso
seemed “very agitated with the fact that [Rubin] was
unsteady on his feet” and his comments about Rubin made
her uncomfortable. (Id. at 31-32.) Peluso denies
making these remarks or ever talking with anyone about
Rubin's gait or health, in a joking manner or otherwise.
(Peluso Dep. at 53, 128-29.)
In
November 2015, Masella was terminated as part of a RIF.
(Def.'s SMF at ¶ 32.) The following month, in
December 2015, Peluso (then age 29) swapped Rubin (then age
57) and Edwin Sepulveda, a Service Team Manager, (then age
51) in their respective managerial roles. (Def.'s SMF at
¶¶ 52-54, 71; Peluso Dep. at 13; Plf.'s Ex. K
at 15.)
In
approximately August 2016, ADT decided to eliminate one of
its seven manager positions in the Connecticut/Western
Massachusetts area market as a necessary reduction in force.
(Def.'s SMF at ¶ 55.) Similar RIFs were occurring in
other regions across the country. (Id. at ¶
56.) Consistent with ADT's standardized RIF process,
Michael Stewart (then approximately age 54), from human
resources, collected information and data on the seven
eligible managers, including Rubin. (Id. at 58.)
Stewart collected each of the manager's last two
performance appraisals and looked for disciplinary actions in
the previous five years.[2] (Stewart Dep. at 24, 32- 33.) He then
provided this information and a RIF worksheet to Peluso (then
age 30), who rated the managers on a scale of 1 to 5 on four
key competencies or skills with a possible high score across
all categories of 20. (Def.'s SMF at 59-60; see
also Def.'s Ex. 19; Plf.'s Ex. L.)
The
completed RIF worksheet contained the following relevant
information:
Last Name
|
|
Title
|
2015 Performance
|
Leadership
|
Talent Management
|
Customer Focus
|
Total Score
|
Gajewski
|
J.
|
Mgt Team Install
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
5
|
13
|
Lamonica
|
A.
|
Mgt Team Service
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
8
|
Ortega
|
J.
|
Mgt Team Install
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
5
|
11
|
Rubin
|
M.
|
Mgt Team Service
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
5
|
9
|
Sepulveda
|
E.
|
Mgt Team Install
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
5
|
13
|
Shea
|
P.
|
Mgt Team Service
|
4
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
15
|
White
|
D.
|
Mgt Team Install
|
4
|
3
|
3
|
5
|
15
|
(Def.'s
Ex. 19; Plf.'s Ex. L.)
The RIF
worksheet further noted that none of the managers had any
corrective action in the past twelve months. (Id.)
In the notes section, however, Peluso highlighted Rubin's
older disciplinary history and other performance
shortcomings.[4] (Id.) He similarly noted that
another manager, J. Ortega, was given a final warning the
prior year for improper use of a company credit card but had
since been in compliance. (Id.) Overall, Rubin
received the second lowest score of the seven managers on the
RIF worksheet. (Id.; Def.'s SMF at ¶ 66.)
The only manager to receive a lower score, A. Lamonica (then
age 48), was also the only female manager and had no
disciplinary record. (Def.'s SMF at ¶ 66.)
Peluso
provided the completed worksheet to Stewart, who forwarded it
to the ultimate decision-makers in ADT's legal and human
resources departments. (Stewart Dep. at 24, 60-61.) Stewart
testified that he knew Rubin would be selected even before
the official decision was made based on Rubin's ranking.
(Id. at 61.)
In
October 2016, and prior to his termination, Peluso allegedly
“made a crack about me, my abilities with my
walk.” (Rubin Dep. at 39.) Rubin responded by asking,
“Do I need to go to the ethics line?”
(Id.) Peluso allegedly retorted, “You
wouldn't dare, ” and walked ...