Corcoran v. G&E Real Estate Mgmt. Servs., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-18 (CSH)
| Citation | 484 F.Supp.3d 43 |
| Decision Date | 04 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-18 (CSH) |
| Parties | Cindy CORCORAN, Plaintiff, v. G&E REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Theodore W. Heiser, Suisman Shapiro, New London, CT, for Plaintiff.
Dove A. E. Burns, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, New York, NY, Elizabeth M. Lacombe, Duane Morris LLP, Stacey L. Pitcher, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Hartford, CT, for Defendant.
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Cindy Corcoran ("Plaintiff" or "Corcoran") originally instituted this action against G&E Real Estate Management Services, Inc. ("Defendant" or "G&E") in Superior Court of the State of Connecticut. Doc. 1. Plaintiff brought various claims under Connecticut law related to her termination from G&E, including that: (1) G&E deprived Plaintiff of her rights based on her sexual orientation; (2) that she was discharged from employment based on gender identity or expression; (3) that she was harassed based on her sexual orientation; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligent misrepresentation; and (6) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. Doc. 1-1.
G&E timely removed the lawsuit to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1 ¶ 7. Thereafter, Corcoran filed an Amended Complaint. Doc. 19. G&E then filed a motion to dismiss, and Corcoran filed an opposition brief. Docs. 29, 36. However, before the Court ruled on G&E's motion, the Parties conferred and agreed that Corcoran would file a Second Amended Complaint, in which she would remove her claims related to her sexual orientation, but would add a common law wrongful termination claim. Doc. 39, at 1–2. The Second Amended Complaint was then filed on the Docket. Doc. 43 ("SAC").
Pending before this Court is G&E's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC. Doc. 44 ("Def.’s Mot."); Doc. 44-1 ("Def.’s Mem."). Plaintiff filed objections to the motion. Doc. 45 ("Pl.’s Mem.). G&E replied. Doc. 46 (Def.’s Reply"). This Ruling resolves Defendant's motion.
The facts herein are taken from the allegations in Corcoran's SAC, which are accepted as true only for purposes of this Ruling.1
On July 23, 2012, Corcoran began working as a senior chief engineer for G&E, a commercial real estate advisory firm. SAC ¶ 8–9. Corcoran served in a supervisory capacity at G&E, and managed twenty-two employees. Id. ¶ 13. Beginning in 2015, Corcoran was primarily assigned to work with G&E's client, Aetna, at their offices located in Hartford, Connecticut. Id. ¶ 11.
During Corcoran's employment, some of the employees that she managed had performance issues that Corcoran, as their supervisor, needed to address. Id. ¶ 18. For example, one employee on Corcoran's team, Kurt, was found napping in a room without lights on by Corcoran's direct supervisor's superior, who directed Corcoran's supervisor to have Corcoran address it. Id. ¶ 22. At the same time, the senior G&E employee remarked to Corcoran's boss that Kurt "looks like a slob" and suggested that Corcoran should address his workplace appearance when she spoke to him about sleeping in the office. Id. ¶ 23. Following that directive, Corcoran had a few discussions with Kurt about his appearance; his not being allowed to sleep during work hours; and G&E's expectation concerning how he should generally carry himself around the workplace. Id. ¶ 24.
Corcoran also had a meeting with her entire team to discuss general workplace behavior, expectations, and the importance of appearing clean and neat in the office. Id. ¶ 25. Kurt felt like he was "targeted" at the meeting and demanded a formal apology from Corcoran. Id. ¶ 26. He then filed a complaint against Corcoran through G&E's human resources ("HR") hotline in which he accused Corcoran of bullying him and threatening his job. Id. ¶ 27. Meanwhile, after the conclusion of these incidents, Corcoran started to notice that her supervisor was treating her differently, and his behavior toward her was unusual based on how he had normally interacted with her. Id. ¶ 28.
Corcoran then faced workplace issues with another employee that she supervised, Jameel. Id. ¶ 30. These issues were primarily related to insubordination and his general demeanor and presentation. Id. ¶ 30. Jameel's direct supervisor, Tony, reported to Corcoran that when Tony provided Jameel with instruction regarding work assignments, Jameel would find reasons to stop working, call Tony back over to him, and ask Tony questions that were unrelated to the task at hand. Id. ¶ 31. Corcoran documented Jameel's issues. Id. ¶ 32. She also met with Jameel one on one, and again with one of Corcoran's leads, to discuss Jameel's issues and to offer assistance. Id.
After seeing no improvement, Corcoran met with HR to discuss her notes about Jameel's performance. Id. ¶ 33. Jameel was also given the opportunity to meet with HR to give his version of events. Id. ¶ 34. Around the same time, he filed a complaint stating that he felt "harassed" by Corcoran. Id. ¶ 35. After the complaint was filed, Corcoran was told that Jameel is in a protected class, and that Corcoran "must back off regardless of whether he is right or wrong." Id. ¶ 36. Corcoran felt that she was no longer allowed to correct his behavior as his manager. Id. ¶ 37.
Sometime thereafter, Corcoran learned that from May 7, 2018, through June 6, 2018, G&E conducted an internal investigation regarding Corcoran without her knowledge. Id. ¶ 39. On June 6, 2018, Corcoran received an email invitation for a conference call with an employee in G&E's corporate office. Id. ¶ 40. Shortly after the call, Corcoran received another invitation for a meeting with her boss and a human resources representative. Id. ¶ 41. During this meeting, Corcoran was told that there had been an investigation based on complaints that her team members made about her. Id. ¶ 42. At the meeting, Corcoran was presented with a performance review plan for various alleged violations of conduct, including threatening to fire staff for underperformance, commenting on staff's personal appearance, and creating an uncomfortable environment for the team. Id. ¶ 44. Corcoran disagreed with the entirety of the performance review plan. Id. ¶ 45.
On June 12, 2018, Corcoran participated in a follow up meeting to enact the performance review plan. Id. ¶ 47. The plan was scheduled to end on August 6, 2018, and Corcoran was scheduled to have bi-weekly meetings to monitor her progress. Id. ¶ 48.
In 2007, Corcoran was convicted of a felony. Id. ¶ 49. In her original employment application, Corcoran did not disclose the conviction. Id. ¶ 50. However, G&E and Aetna were aware of the conviction during Corcoran's employment, and Corcoran had continued to work for G&E at Aetna for many years. Id. ¶ 51–53. Corcoran was advised that Aetna did not want an additional background check performed on her. Id. ¶ 54.
Following the complaints from her subordinates and the investigation, G&E demanded that Corcoran agree to a new background check or lose her job. Id. ¶ 55. Corcoran consented, and believes that the results of the background check reflected her felony conviction. Id. ¶¶ 56–57.
Thereafter, on July 10, 2018, Corcoran received a letter stating that her employment with G&E was being involuntarily terminated effective immediately. Id. ¶ 58. Corcoran's last day of employment was July 10, 2018. Id. ¶ 59. At that time, Corcoran was told that she "no longer meets the criteria for employment." Id. ¶ 60. Corcoran's salary was approximately $104,000.00 per year. Id. ¶ 61. Her professional reputation and personal stature within G&E's structure and outside have been damaged by the termination. Id. ¶ 62.
On a motion to dismiss, "the issue is ‘whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.’ " Patane v. Clark , 508 F.3d 106, 111 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes , 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) ). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). This pleading standard creates a "two-pronged approach" which is based on "[t]wo working principles." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678–79, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
First, all factual allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true; and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the favor of the non-moving party. See id. ; see also Gorman v. Consolidated Edison Corp. , 488 F.3d 586, 591–92 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The presumption of truth does not extend, however, to "legal conclusions" or "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
Second, "a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief" will survive a motion to dismiss and "[d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Harris v. Mills , 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is appropriate when it is clear from the face of the complaint, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice, that the plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of law." Associated Fin. Corp. v. Kleckner , 480 F. App'x 89, 90 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotations marks omitted).
Corcoran claims against G&E are the following: (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial