Larsen v. Berlin Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 28 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-427 (JAM) |
| Citation | 588 F.Supp.3d 247 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Sarah LARSEN, Plaintiff, v. BERLIN BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants. |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Sarah Larsen requested leave from her employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C § 2601 et seq. She was ultimately granted leave to treat her mental health condition, but only after her employer-the defendant Berlin Board of Education (“the Board”)-required her to submit to an invasive “second opinion” medical exam and other alleged indignities.
Larsen now brings this federal court action against the Board, the Board's Superintendent Brian Benigni, and the Board's Human Resources Director Denise Parsons for FMLA retaliation and other federal and state law violations. The defendants have moved to dismiss her amended complaint. I will deny the defendants' motion to dismiss Larsen's FMLA retaliation claim against the Board and against Parsons and Benigni in their individual capacities, but I will grant their motion to dismiss all other claims against the defendants.
Larsen has worked since 2013 for the Board as a classroom teacher at Griswold Elementary School.[1] Larsen is also the mother of a school-age daughter who attends a public school outside of the Berlin school district (“District”).[2] For more than twenty years, Larsen has been privately managing a mental health condition.[3] Prior to the events surrounding this case Larsen had never disclosed her mental health condition to the Board or any other employer.[4]
Over the summer of 2020, as schools and workplaces around the country considered whether and how to reopen in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the State of Connecticut announced that individual school districts would be responsible for making their own re-opening decisions for the 2020-21 school year.[5] On July 29, 2020, some time after the State's announcement, teachers and staff from Griswold met to discuss the District's proposed reopening plans.[6] At the meeting, Larsen and others identified themselves as Griswold classroom teachers with school-age children who attended schools outside of the District (collectively, “Non-Resident Teacher/Caregivers”).[7] The Non-Resident Teacher/Caregivers expressed concern about how they would balance work and childcare responsibilities in the event that the District opted for in-person instruction while their children's home districts opted for remote instruction.[8]The Non-Resident Teacher/Caregivers were additionally concerned about how childcare-related absences would be treated under the District's leave policy, FMLA, or any other applicable policy or law.[9]
On July 30, 2020, Larsen, acting as a representative for the Non-Resident Teacher/Caregivers, called Denise Parsons, Director of Human Resources for the District, to discuss the Non-Resident Teacher/Caregivers' concerns.[10] Parsons acknowledged the questions and concerns and indicated that she would respond with answers at a later time.[11] Larsen did not specifically request leave for childcare or any other reason during the July 30 phone call.[12]
Approximately one week later, on August 7, 2020, Larsen emailed Parsons requesting information on the process for taking leave under FMLA and indicating her intention to do so for “personal medical reasons.”[13] Larsen's email was forwarded to another human resources official, who solicited some basic information from Larsen-including the purpose and anticipated dates of the leave request-and provided Larsen with a blank FMLA medical certification form to be completed by a medical provider and returned.[14] On August 12, 2020, Larsen returned a completed medical certification averring that she suffered from “severe anxiety . . . and frequent panic attacks.”[15]
While Larsen's FMLA leave request was pending, Parsons became aware of other NonResident Teacher/Caregivers who were interested in requesting FMLA leave, and Parsons apparently became concerned about how such requests might affect the District's ability to satisfy its staffing requirements.[16] Larsen is herself aware of at least one other Non-Resident Teacher/Caregiver (“Jane Doe 3”) who “asked for information about and/or requested leave of absence for childcare purposes” and “requested the FMLA paper work . . . for a personal medical condition.”[17] On August 14, 2020, Larsen and Parsons spoke over the telephone.[18] Parsons stated that she did not believe that Larsen's FMLA medical certification was legitimate; instead, Parsons believed that Larsen had contrived her medical condition as an alternative means of obtaining leave after she had previously requested and been denied leave for childcare purposes.[19] Larsen interjected that she had never formally requested leave for childcare purposes, and Parsons corrected herself and admitted that Larsen had not.[20] Still, the telephone call escalated, with Parsons allegedly yelling the following:
I have over three hundred teachers. And I cannot have them thinking they could go get letters like [Larsen's medical certification], to not have to come back to work. I [personally] will not be approving your leave. And I will be sending it to [defendant Brian Benigni, Board Superintendent] for his review[.][21]
Shortly after the call, Parsons gave her own account of the conversation in an allegedly “sanitized and self-serving” email to Superintendent Benigni, stating that she had:
interrupted [Larsen] abruptly, raised my voice slightly and told her that she had to realize that we are dealing with 350 teachers who are nervous about returning to school. I told her I needed to be extremely cautious as we move forward with FMLA leaves to make sure . . . the requests comply with the law.[22]
The following week, Parsons and Benigni met to discuss the August 14 telephone call and Larsen's FMLA leave request. Parsons shared her view that Larsen should submit to a second opinion medical exam by a Board-selected health care provider.[23] Under the FMLA, such an exam may be required as a condition of granting leave when the employer “has reason to doubt the validity” of a medical certification provided by the FMLA leave applicant. 29 U.S.C. § 2613(c); see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.307(b). Benigni soon agreed that Larsen should be required to submit to a second opinion exam.[24]
On August 18, 2020, the Board granted Larsen provisional FMLA leave, subject to the results of a second opinion medical exam.[25] The Board selected Dr. John Bonetti, who met with Larsen on August 28, 2020.[26] During the exam, Dr. Bonetti allegedly falsely stated that Larsen had previously requested and been denied childcare leave.[27] Dr. Bonetti then “took [] Larsen through all of [her] childhood trauma” since the age of twelve.[28] The second opinion medical exam lasted one and a half hours and left Larsen “utterly traumatized and scared.”[29]
On September 10, 2020, prior to receiving the results of the second opinion exam, Larsen served the Board with a “Notice of Claim and Notice to Preserve Evidence.”[30] Later that same day, Parsons received a report on the results of the second opinion exam.[31] Dr. Bonetti's report confirmed that Larsen suffered from a legitimate mental health condition.[32] The report also contained extensive details regarding Larsen's personal medical history, which Larsen claims were unnecessary and beyond the scope of a proper second opinion exam.[33] With her serious health condition now corroborated, Larsen's FMLA leave remained in effect.
On December 7, 2020, Larsen filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for Board communications and records pertaining to her FMLA leave request.[34] In response, and despite her prior Notice to Preserve Evidence, Larsen received no Board communications and only incomplete Board records.[35]
At some point during her leave, the Board informed Larsen that she would be required to submit to a fitness-for-duty examination, at her own expense, prior to returning to work.[36] Under the FMLA, such an exam may be required as long as it is part of an employer's “uniformly-applied policy or practice.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.312(a). According to Larsen, the Board did not previously have a uniform policy or practice of requiring all similarly situated employees to obtain a fitness-for-duty certification prior to returning from FMLA leave.[37]
On March 26, 2020, Larsen filed this federal lawsuit.[38] Larsen's amended complaint alleges five claims against the Berlin Board of Education and against Human Resources Director Parsons and Superintendent Benigni in both their personal and official capacities.[39] Count One alleges retaliation in violation of the FMLA. Counts Two and Three allege Equal Protection claims in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Counts Four and Five allege state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for intentional spoliation of evidence. The defendants now move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[40]
The standard that governs a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is well established. A complaint may not survive unless it alleges facts that, taken as true, give rise to plausible grounds to sustain a plaintiff's claims for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Kim v Kimm, 884 F.3d 98, 103 (2d Cir. 2018). As the Supreme Court has explained, this “plausibility” requirement is “not akin to a probability requirement, ” but it “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial