Barone v. Judicial Branch, 3:17-cv-644 (VAB)

• Decision Date: 27 December 2019
• Docket Number: No. 3:17-cv-644 (VAB),3:17-cv-644 (VAB)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: ANNE MARIE BARONE, Plaintiff, v. JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, GLORIA ALBERT, and LINDA COON, Defendants.

ANNE MARIE BARONE, Plaintiff, v. JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, GLORIA ALBERT,and LINDA COON, Defendants.

No. 3:17-cv-644 (VAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

December 27, 2019

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Anne Marie Barone ("Plaintiff") has sued the Judicial Branch for the State of Connecticut ("Judicial Branch") and two Judicial Branch supervisors, Gloria Albert and Linda Coon (collectively "Defendants"), alleging discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Defendants have moved for summary judgment.

For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background¹

In the year 2000, Ms. Barone started working for the Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut as a court monitor, Defs.' Statement of Material Facts ¶ 6, ECF No. 57-2 (Mar. 1, 2019) ("Defs.' SOMF"); Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts ¶ 6, ECF No. 60 (Mar. 15, 2019) ("Pl.'s SOMF"), at the Danbury Superior Court. Defs.' SOMF Ex. A, ECF No. 57-4 at 15(Barone Dep. at 49:6-13) ("Barone Dep."). Ms. Albert supervised Ms. Barone until 2014. Defs.' SOMF ¶ 10; Pl.'s SOMF ¶ 10.

In June 2014, Ms. Coon began to supervise Ms. Barone. Defs.' SOMF ¶ 11; Barone Dep. at 45:5-8. Ms. Coon worked with Ms. Barone from June 2014 until October of that same year. Defs.' SOMF ¶ 11-16; Defs.' SOMF Ex. E, ECF No. 57-8 at 5, 12 (Coon Dep. at 16:19-21, 68:5-10) ("Coon Dep.").

During her employment with the Judicial Branch, Ms. Barone allegedly "developed a physical disability, ulcerative colitis, and was diagnosed as suffering from a mental and learning disability, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder" ("ADHD"). Pl.'s SOMF ¶ 20; Defs.' SOMF ¶ 20; Third Am. Compl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 39 (Apr. 3, 2018).

1. Requests for leave and accommodation, and the first EEOC Complaint

In June or July of 2012, Ms. Barone sought medical leave from the Judicial Branch. Defs.' SOMF ¶ 21. After examining Ms. Barone on June 28, 2012, a physician indicated that she would be able to return to regular work on July 5, 2012. Barone Dep. Ex. 18, ECF No. 59 (Judicial Branch Medical Certificate (July 5, 2012)) (submitted under seal).

In late 2013 or early 2014, Ms. Barone sought an accommodation from the Judicial Branch. Defs.' SOMF Ex. C, ECF No. 57-6 at 24 (Albert Dep. at 62:15-25) ("Albert Dep."). Ms. Barone did not disclose to Ms. Albert what accommodation she had requested or the reason for the request but told Ms. Albert that "she felt if she filed [the accommodation request, the Judicial Branch would "have to give her her own office," and that "it would help her do her job better." Id. at 62:21-25, 64:1-65:15).

By early 2014, Ms. Albert had been transferred to the Hartford Superior Court. Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 2 (Barone Dep. Ex. 1, EEOC Intake Questionnaire (Feb. 25,2014) (Ms. Barone naming Gloria Albert as her immediate supervisor and noting that she had "just transferred to Hartford") ("EEOC Intake Questionnaire"); Barone Dep. at 49:17-22.

On February 25, 2014, Ms. Barone claimed to have been discriminated against because of her disability of ADHD. EEOC Intake Questionnaire. The questionnaire refers to e-mails describing discriminatory actions, but these underlying e-mails have not been included in this record. Id. at 3-4. Ms. Barone claims to have requested her own office on November 15, 2013 and claims to have been "[d]enied an accommodation request" on January 16, 2014, "based on [her] position and not [her] special needs condition." Id. at 3-4. The questionnaire quotes an allegedly attached e-mail stating that "[t]he position of a Court Recording Monitor does not require this level of privacy." Id. Ms. Barone testified about having worked in a cubicle with walls but stated that she did not have privacy from noise. Barone Dep. at 111:1-112:15.

On March 27, 2014, the EEOC informed Ms. Barone that she needed to complete and return an enclosed Charge of Discrimination form in order for it to take further action. Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 17 (Barone Dep. Ex. 1, EEOC Letter (Mar. 27, 2014)). The EEOC further informed her that the Charge of Discrimination form also would be sent to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CHRO") to investigate "under their statute" as well. Id.

On May 6, 2014, the EEOC received Ms. Barone's completed Charge of Discrimination form. Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 11 (Barone Dep. Ex. 1, EEOC Charge of Discrimination Form (notarized May 2, 2014; EEOC receipt stamp May 6, 2014)). Then, on May 22, 2014, the EEOC confirmed that her charge of employment discrimination had been received and informed her of the procedures going forward. Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 14-15 (Barone Dep. Ex. 1, EEOC Letter (May 22, 2014)). On the same day, an EEOC Mediator sent aletter addressed to both Ms. Barone and a Human Resources representative of the Judicial Branch inviting both parties to participate in mediation. Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 13 (Barone Dep. Ex. 1, EEOC Invitation to Mediate (May 22, 2014)).

On June 23, 2014, the EEOC Mediator sent another letter to both Ms. Barone and the Judicial Branch human resources representative stating that Ms. Barone's charge was "no longer eligible for mediation through the EOC's Mediation Program" because the "[r]espondent failed to respond by the due date." Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 12 (Barone Dep. Ex. 1, EEOC Letter (June 23, 2014)).

Ms. Barone was on approved medical leave for the time periods of August 18 through September 1, 2014, and September 2 through September 9, 2014. Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 52-53 (Barone Dep. Exs. 20-21, Dr. Jessica Chaudhary Letters recommending medical leave for Patient Anne Marie Barone (Aug. 18, 2014 and Aug. 27, 2014)). On September 9, 2014, Ms. Barone submitted another form, signed by Dr. Jessica Chaudhary, indicating that due to "ADHD [and] derivative symptoms," Ms. Barone could "work regular h[ou]rs if she has a quiet work environment—can focus in court room during trial, but has difficulty [at] duty station with numerous distractions." Barone Dep. Ex. 24, ECF No. 59-1 (Judicial Branch Medical Certificate (Sept. 9, 2014)) (submitted under seal).

On September 23, 2014, the Judicial Branch approved leave for Ms. Barone under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for September 11 through September 25, 2014. Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 54-56 (Barone Dep. Ex. 22, Judicial Branch Response to Employee Request for FMLA Leave (Sept. 23, 2014)). When she returned to work on September 26, 2014, Ms. Barone had to be at her assigned duty station. Barone Dep. at 113:11-13.

Ms. Barone testified that when she requested medical leave time, the Judicial Branch granted her requests. Barone Dep. at 145:8-20.

On January 29, 2015, the EEOC sent a letter to Ms. Barone dismissing her charge of discrimination. Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 6 (Barone Dep. Ex. 1, EEOC Letter (Sept. 23, 2014)). The letter stated, in part, as follows:

[W]e have examined your charge based upon the information and evidence you submitted. You allege you were subjected to employment discrimination because of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . Respondent's position statement has been previously shared with you. You were provided with an opportunity to submit a rebuttal to this position state [sic] but none was received.

Based upon a review of the documents received, the Commission is unable to conclude that the information establishes a violation of Federal law on the part of Respondent. This does not certify that Respondent is in compliance with the statute.

Id.

2. Workplace Issues

On July 31, 2014, Ms. Barone received a written reprimand for leaving work on July 3, 2014. Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 24 (Barone Dep. Ex. 5, Judicial Branch Written Reprimand (July 31, 2014)).

On October 17, 2014, Ms. Barone stated "screw you too" to a coworker. Barone Dep. at 91:13-92:10 (testifying that she did say "screw you" to a coworker on the date indicated); Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 28-29 (Barone Dep. Ex. 7, Judicial Branch Disciplinary Letter (Mar. 13, 2015)).

On November 17, 2014, Ms. Barone told a co-worker that "you can't play the invalid card anymore." Barone Dep. at 88:9-15.

The next day, Ms. Barone told her Judicial Branch co-workers that "they can both go fuck themselves." Barone Dep. at 90:3-8; Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 26-27 (Barone Dep. Ex. 6, Judicial Branch Disciplinary Letter (Mar. 9, 2015)).

On November 20, 2014, Ms. Barone sprayed an aerosol substance in the office despite an e-mail having been sent to employees asking them not to spray substances in the office due to another employee's sensitivities. Barone Dep. at 90:12-17; Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 26-27 (Barone Dep. Ex. 6, Judicial Branch Disciplinary Letter (Mar. 9, 2015)).

On March 9, 2015, the Executive Director of Operations for the Judicial Branch suspended Ms. Barone for two days without pay because of the incidents in November of 2014. Defs.' SOMF Ex. B, ECF No. 57-5 at 26-27 (Barone Dep. Ex. 6, Judicial Branch Disciplinary Letter (Mar. 9, 2015)). The corresponding letter states, in part:

On November 17, 2014 at the end of the work day, you referred to a co-worker as an "invalid." On November 18, 2014, upon arriving at work, you began to argue with this same co-worker. When another employee attempted to diffuse this argument, you told everyone in the office to "go f*** themselves." Also, despite an email to all staff requesting that employees refrain from using perfumes, colognes, or aerosol sprays due to an employee's sensitivity to them, on November 20, 2014 you sprayed a deodorant type spray in the office.

At a predisciplinary meeting you stated that you were frustrated with your co-worker because she used her health issue to "manipulate"

...