Jansson v. Stamford Health, Inc.

Decision Date05 April 2017
Docket NumberCivil Action No. No. 3:16-cv-260 (CSH)
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
PartiesSAMANTHA JANSSON, Plaintiff, v. STAMFORD HEALTH, INC. d/b/a STAMFORD HOSPITAL, STAMFORD HOSPITAL, STAMFORD ANESTHESIOLOGY SERVICES, P.C., VANTAGEPOINT LLC d/b/a VANTAGEPOINT HEALTHCARE ADVISORS, MICHAEL COADY, SHARON KIELY, SAL MANCINO and THERESA BOWLING, Defendants.

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT [DOC. 59]

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Samantha Jansson commenced this employment discrimination action, alleging that she was wrongfully terminated by her two former employers, Stamford Hospital (including Stamford Health, Inc., doing business as Stamford Hospital) and Stamford Anesthesiology Services P.C. ("SAS"). She brings this action against these two employers, certain named individual employees, and VantagePoint HealthCare, a consulting firm which provided human resources and management services to Stamford Hospital and SAS.1 Plaintiff alleges that she was employed as ananesthesiologist by co-defendants Stamford Hospital and SAS from approximately November 2007 until January 2015. Doc. 59-1, at 9 (¶ 18), at 37 (¶ 142), and at 39 (¶ 152).2 Plaintiff has been an anesthesiologist for over 31 years and is "Board Certified in Anesthesiology and Echocardiography." Id., at 8 ( ¶ 13). During her employment with Stamford Hospital and SAS, she occupied the position of "Director of Cardiac Anesthesiology" at Stamford Hospital. Id., at 9 (¶¶ 16-17). Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that she was terminated from this position in retaliation for speech regarding safety issues relating to the hospital's hiring of inexperienced anesthesiologists.

Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges discrimination by her employers due to her physical disabilities. According to Plaintiff, she was criticized in a disciplinary memorandum for elevating her right foot on a stool while inducing patients with general anesthesia; but such elevation was necessary due to her severe mid-foot arthritis. Id., at 18-19 (¶¶ 57-58). In addition, she was allegedly accused by the hospital of speaking louder than necessary in the operation room. However, Plaintiff asserts that such loud speech was the result of her partial hearing loss. Id., at 19 (¶ 59). Lastly, Plaintiff was criticized for not appropriately engaging with patients while providing anesthesia. Id., at 18-19 (¶ 57). Plaintiff, however, alleges that she had been instructed by the hospital's Radiation Safety Director that her radiation exposure levels on her monitoring badge had increased to the point where she should wear a lead gown and thyroid shield and either stand as far away as possible from the point of radiation emission or sit behind the lead screen in the lab procedure suite. Id., at 20 (¶ 60).

As Plaintiff summarizes, "[a]s a result of raising safety issues, an intense and committed campaign of retaliation against Plaintiff followed involving all of the Defendants that ultimately resulted in her termination." Id., at 23 (¶ 73). Moreover, "Defendants conspired with each other to effectuate Plaintiff's termination," "discriminated against Plaintiff due to her disabilities," and "retaliated against Plaintiff due to raising concerns regarding her disabilities and gender." Id.

A. Claims in Proposed Amended Complaint

In her proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings the following causes of action. In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Stamford Hospital and SAS disciplined and discharged her for speaking out regarding patients' safety, a matter of public concern, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q. Specifically, these defendants allegedly violated her right to exercise free expression, as guaranteed by Sections 3, 4 and 14 of Article First of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut.

Plaintiff alleges in Count Two that Stamford Hospital and SAS retaliated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, she alleges that Stamford Hospital engages in a pattern and practice of taking adverse employment actions against female employees who make complaints against Defendant Coady for his sexual harassment of female employees. Furthermore, SAS allegedly participated in retaliatory adverse employment actions against her. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that her employment was terminated by these employers in violation of Title VII.

Next, in Counts Three and Four, respectively, Plaintiff alleges that Stamford Hospital and SAS discriminated against her due to her disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, 12203(a), and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act("CFEPA"), Conn. Gen. Stat § 46a-60.3

Under Count Five, Plaintiff alleges that Stamford Hospital and SAS retaliated against her in violation of the ADA by subjecting her to discipline, and ultimately termination, in retaliation for expressing opposition to discrimination based on her disabilities.

In Count Six, Plaintiff alleges retaliation under CFEPA by Stamford Hospital and SAS for opposing discrimination based on her disabilities and sex, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 (a)(1)-(2).

Next, in Count Seven, Plaintiff alleges that Stamford Hospital retaliated against her for exercising her right under the Family and Medical Leave Act (" FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2617, et seq., to take medical leave of one day due to her daughter's medical condition.

Plaintiff brings Counts Eight through Twelve against five defendants for "aiding and abetting" the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct of Stamford Hospital and SAS (which was allegedly based on Plaintiff's disabilities and sex in violation of the CFEPA, Conn. Gen Stat. § 46a-60(a)(5)). The defendants against whom these claims are brought include, respectively: VantagePoint, Michael Coady, Sharon Kiely, Sal Mancino, and Theresa Bowling. With respect to each defendant's alleged violations of the CFEPA, Plaintiff has filed a corresponding complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CHRO") on April 1, 2015, andreceived a release of jurisdiction from CHRO.4

In Count Thirteen, Plaintiff alleges that "[t]he Stamford Hospital Defendants and SAS aided, abetted, coerced, compelled and incited the other's discriminatory and retaliatory conduct based on Plaintiff['s] disabilities and sex in violation of the CFEPA," Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(a)(5). Doc. 59-1, at 47 (¶ 157). As to this conduct, Plaintiff asserts that she filed a complaint with the CHRO and EEOC on April 1, 2015, and received releases of jurisdiction from the CHRO on January 4, 2016, and from the EEOC on December 1, 2015. Id., at 48 (¶ 160).

Plaintiff next alleges in Count Fourteen that Stamford Hospital and SAS "interfered with [her] relationship and opportunities with the other in violation of Title VII, ADA and CFEPA due to their discriminatory and retaliatory motives." Id. (¶ 157). As in Count Thirteen, Plaintiff asserts that she filed a complaint with the CHRO and EEOC on April 1, 2015, and received releases of jurisdiction from the CHRO on January 4, 2016, and from the EEOC on December 1, 2015. Id. (¶ 159).

In Count Fifteen, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Stamford Hospital and SAS "discriminated against [her] due to her sex in violation of CFEPA, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-60 et seq." Id. , at 49 (¶ 157). Similarly, in Count Sixteen, Plaintiff asserts that "Defendants Stamford Hospital and SAS discriminated against Plaintiff due to her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e[,] et seq." Id., at (¶ 157). As to these two counts for sex discrimination, state and federal, Plaintiff alleges that she filed a complaint with the CHRO and EEOC on April 1, 2015, and received releases of jurisdiction from the CHRO on January 4, 2016,and from the EEOC on December 1, 2015. Id. (¶ 159).

B. Pending Motion

In Plaintiff's pending second motion for leave to amend her complaint [Doc. 59], she explains, in her own words, that "[b]y way of this amendment, she seeks to do the following:

"1. Clarify the extent and chronic nature of her medical conditions giving rise to her disability discrimination claims;
2. Clarify the speech and her motivation for speech giving rise to her claim under Section 31-51q of the Connecticut General Statu[t]es;
3. Clarify the role of Defendant VantagePoint LLC d/b/a VantagePoint Healthcare;
4. Add an introductory paragraph and a paragraph regarding the Court's jurisdiction, consistent with federal pleading standard for complaints; and
5. Support the claim under Section 31-51q of the Connecticut General Statutes that Plaintiff's speech did not materially or substantial[ly] interfere with her bona fide job performance or the working relationship."

Doc. 59, p. 1-2.

C. Procedural History

Placing the pending motion in context, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed her original complaint in state court (Judicial District of Fairfield) on or about January 20, 2016. Defendant Stamford Hospital then filed that complaint in this court in conjunction with Defendants' "Petition of Removal" on February 17, 2016. Doc. 1. Thereafter, Defendants Coady, Kiely, Mancino, and Stamford Hospital filed a "Motion to Dismiss" [Doc. 25] on April 8, 2016. A few days later,Defendants Bowling and SAS filed a separate "Motion to Dismiss" [Doc. 26]. While these two motions were pending and unripe for decision, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the first motion to dismiss [Doc. 49] contemporaneously with a first "Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint" [Doc. 48]. After seeking and obtaining extensions to respond to the second motion to dismiss [Doc. 26], Plaintiff moved to amend or correct her first motion to amend in a pleading entitled, "Amendment to Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint" [Doc. 54]. The Court granted that motion, allowing Plaintiff to make amendments/corrections to her first "Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint" and directed Plaintiff to file her ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT