Legal Document: SHEEHAN, KEVIN v. ECO RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC

On February 27, 2024 a MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RESULT: Granted 3/11/2024 HON MARK ALTERMATT was filed involving a dispute between Kevin Sheehan, and Eco Recovery Solutions, Llc, for M90 - Misc - All other in the District Court of Windham County.

Preview
DOCKET NO. WWM-CV23-6025841-S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
KEVIN SHEEHAN, : J.D. OF WINDHAM
Plaintiff, : AT PUTNAM
:
V. :
:
ECO RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LLC and :
BARRY SCAPLEN, :
Defendants. : FEBRUARY 28, 2024
______________________________________________________________________________

DOCKET NO. WWM-CV24-6028895-S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
KEVIN SHEEHAN, : J.D. OF WINDHAM
Plaintiff, : AT PUTNAM
:
V. :
:
ECO RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, :
Defendant. : FEBRUARY 28, 2024

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-104 and Practice Book § 9-5, Defendants ECO Recovery

Systems, LLC and Barry Scaplen, by and through their attorneys, Jackson Lewis P.C., respectfully

move to consolidate the following actions: Kevin Sheehan v. ECO Recovery Systems, LLC, et al,

Superior Court, Judicial District of Windham at Putnam, Docket No. WWM-CV23-6025841-S

(“First Action”) and Kevin Sheehan v. ECO Recovery Systems, LLC, Superior Court, Judicial

District of Windham at Tolland, Docket No. WWM-CV24-6028895-S (“Second Action”). For the

following reasons, Defendants’ motion to consolidate should be granted.

General Statutes §52-104 provides that “[a]ll persons may be joined in one action as

plaintiffs in whom any right of relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or

series of transactions is alleged to exist either jointly or severally when, if such persons brought

separate actions, any common question of law or fact would arise….” C.G.S. § 52-104

(emphasis added). Consistent with this authority, Practice Book § 9-5, in turn, provides,
“Whenever there are two or more separate actions which should be tried together, the judicial

authority may, upon the motion of any party or upon its own motion, order that the actions be

consolidated for trial.” The rule is designed to promote judicial economy when the actions arise

out of the same transaction and/or involve identical parties. Mola v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a

Home Depot, Docket No. FST CV98-0167635S, 27 Conn. L. Rptr. 60 (Conn. Sup. Ct. Apr. 7,

2000).

The Connecticut Supreme Court has long recognized that the decision to consolidate cases

lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Rode v. Adley Express Co., Inc., 130

Conn. 274, 277 (1943) (“Independent of statutory authority, courts of general jurisdiction have

inherent power to consolidate different causes, or order them tried together, when the

circumstances authorize such course; and unless otherwise provided by statute, questions

respecting such procedure are addressed to the discretion of the trial court….”); Alpha Crane

Service, Inc. v. Capitol Crane Co., 6 Conn. App. 60, 68, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 808 (1986) (“[I]t

has long been held that the decision to consolidate or sever the trial of different actions is within

the sound discretion of the court….”).

It is well settled that “[w]hether the actions arise out of the same transaction or involve

identical parties are important factors in determining the propriety of the joinder or the

consolidation of actions.” Mola, 27 Conn. L. Rptr. 60. Here, the two Actions undisputedly arise

from the same transaction: the Plaintiff’s termination of employment by ECO Recovery Systems.

Consolidating these Actions will promote judicial economy because they involve the same facts,

identical parties, and arise from the same transaction.

 In the First Action, Plaintiff asserts claims for interference with the Connecticut
Family Medical Leave Act (“CTFMLA”) and CTFMLA discrimination and/or
retaliation. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that he worked for ECO Recovery Systems
reporting to Barry Scaplen (¶s 9-15), was injured in a motorcycle accident (¶s 19-
23), which required him to miss time from work (¶s 24, 32), and despite notifying

2
Defendants of his accident and injuries (¶s 25-30), Defendants terminated
Plaintiff’s employment (¶s 36-37). See Complaint dated December 15, 2022,
attached as Exhibit A.

 In the Second Action, Plaintiff alleges all of the same underlying facts: Plaintiff
worked for ECO Recovery Systems reporting to Barry Scaplen (¶s 5-11), was
injured in a motorcycle accident (¶s 15-19), which required him to miss time from
work (¶s 20, 28), and despite notifying Defendants of his accident and injuries (¶s
21-26), Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment (¶s 32-33). In the Second
Action, however, Plaintiff asserts claims for disability discrimination, failure to
accommodate, and retaliation in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment
Practices Act (“CFEPA”). See Complaint dated February 4, 2024, attached as
Exhibit B.1

In fact, a side-by-side comparison of Plaintiff’s Complaints in the First and Second Actions

reveals not only that Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same transaction but also that all of Plaintiff’s

factual allegations are identical:

First Action Second Action
ECO Recovery employed Plaintiff at its ECO Recovery employed Plaintiff at its
Putnam facility. (¶s 9-10.) Putnam facility. (¶s 5-6.)
Scaplen is the site supervisor for the Putnam Scaplen is the site supervisor for the Putnam
facility, a supervisory employee, and facility, a supervisory employee, and
supervised Plaintiff. (¶s 11-13.) supervised Plaintiff. (¶s 7-9.)
Scaplen has authority to hire and fire. (¶ 14.) Scaplen has authority to hire and fire. (¶ 10.)
ECO Recovery hired Plaintiff in March 2021 ECO Recovery hired Plaintiff in March 2021
as an Operator. (¶s 15-16.) as an Operator. (¶s 11-12.)
Plaintiff was a full-time employee and Plaintiff was a full-time employee and
qualified for his position. (¶s 17-18.) qualified for his position. (¶s 13-14.)
Plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle Plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle
accident. (¶ 19.) accident. (¶ 15.)
Plaintiff sustained injuries in the motorcycle Plaintiff sustained injuries in the motorcycle
accident. (¶ 20.) accident. (¶ 16.)
The injuries required medical attention and The injuries required medical attention and
treatment. (¶ 21.) treatment. (¶ 17.)
Plaintiff went to the hospital for the injuries. Plaintiff went to the hospital for the injuries.
He was admitted to the hospital overnight. He was admitted to the hospital overnight.
(¶ 22.) (¶ 18.)
The injuries included fractured ribs. (¶ 23.) The injuries included fractured ribs. (¶ 19.)

1
Plaintiff recently filed the Second Action after exhausting his administrative remedies under CFEPA by first filing
a complaint of discrimination with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (“CHRO”) and
then requesting and receiving a release of jurisdiction from the CHRO on November 17, 2023. See Exhibit B at ¶s 39-
39.

3
Plaintiff had to miss time from work because Plaintiff had to miss time from work because
of his injuries. (¶ 24.) of his injuries. (¶ 20.)
Defendants were notified of Plaintiff’s Defendants were notified of Plaintiff’s
motorcycle accident and the injuries he motorcycle accident and the injuries he
sustained. (¶s 25-27.) sustained. (¶s 21-23.)
Defendants were notified of Plaintiff being Defendants were notified of Plaintiff being
admitted to the hospital for the injuries. (¶ 28.) admitted to the hospital for the injuries. (¶ 24.)
Defendants were notified of Plaintiff being Defendants were notified of Plaintiff being
under the care of a doctor for the injuries. under the care of a doctor for the injuries.
(¶ 29.) (¶ 25.)
Defendants were notified of Plaintiff requiring Defendants were notified of Plaintiff requiring
a medical leave of absence due to his injuries. a medical leave of absence due to his injuries.
(¶ 30.) (¶ 26.)
Plaintiff had a doctor’s note to provide to the Plaintiff had a doctor’s note to provide to the
Defendants. (¶ 31.) Defendants. (¶ 27.)
The doctor’s note stated that Plaintiff was The doctor’s note stated that Plaintiff was
admitted to the hospital on 10/8/22 and he admitted to the hospital on 10/8/22 and he
could return to work on 10/24/22. (¶ 32.) could return to work on 10/24/22. (¶ 28.)
Plaintiff provided the doctor’s note to Plaintiff provided the doctor’s note to
Defendants. (¶ 33.) Defendants. (¶ 29.)
Plaintiff provided photographs of his injuries Plaintiff provided photographs of his injuries
to Defendants. (¶ 34.) to Defendants. (¶ 30.)
Plaintiff notified Defendants of needing to Plaintiff notified Defendants of needing to
undergo additional x-rays. (¶ 35.) undergo additional x-rays. (¶ 31.)
On or about 10/20/22, Defendant ECO On or about 10/20/22, Defendant ECO
Recovery terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Recovery terminated Plaintiff’s employment.
(¶ 36.) (¶ 32.)
Defendant Scaplen was involved in the Defendant Scaplen was involved in the
decision-making process to terminate decision-making process to terminate
Plaintiff’s employment. (¶ 37.) Plaintiff’s employment. (¶ 32.)

Under these circumstances, where the two Actions involve identical factual allegations and

the same parties (Plaintiff, ECO Recovery System and Barry Scaplen), this Court should exercise

its discretion and consolidate the cases for all purposes up through and including trial. Requiring

these cases to proceed along parallel tracks ensures duplicative discovery, largely redundant

dispositive motions, and two trials in which the testimony of identical witnesses that concerns the

exact same sequence of events.

Moreover, maintaining the two actions under two different docket numbers would serve

no procedural benefit whatsoever. Instead, it would create procedural hurdles to the efficient

4
resolution of this case, requiring the parties to file separate pleadings in the two actions, requiring

the parties to file two separate summary judgment motions, discovery motions and any other

motions that impact issues in both actions, and requiring the Court to keep the two actions separate

for purposes of its rulings. Accordingly, the Second Action should be consolidated with the First

Action in a single case captioned Kevin Sheehan v. ECO Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al, Superior

Court, Judicial District of Windham at Putnam, Docket No. WWM-CV23-6025841-S. See, e.g.,

Farmers & Mechanics Bank v. Cohen, 1993 Conn. Super. LEXIS 348, at *11 (Conn. Super. Ct.

Feb. 5, 1993) (allowing the joinder of two actions between the same parties because it would

promote judicial economy, among other factors); Fiveash v. Conn. Conf. of Municipalities, 215

Conn. App. 542, 544 (2002) (noting that trial court consolidated two employment claims involving

the same parties for all purposes including discovery and trial). “The public’s interest in avoiding

unnecessary litigation and conserving scarce judicial resources is too powerful a factor to ignore.”

Nielsen v. Nielsen, 3 Conn. App. 679, 684 (1985). “It makes little sense for these two actions to be

litigated in parallel.” Id. Instead, the two complaints should be consolidated into one action under

the docket number of the First Action.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, Defendants respectfully requests that the

Court grant this motion and consolidate these two Actions.

5
DEFENDANTS,
ECO RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC and
BARRY SCAPLEN

By: 422285
Holly L. Cini
Holly.Cini@jacksonlewis.com
Sara R. Simeonidis
Sara.Simeonidis@jacksonlewis.com
Jackson Lewis P.C.
90 State House Square, 8th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
T: (860) 522-0404
F:(860) 247-1330
Juris No. 409670

6
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 28, 2024, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically.

A copy has been served via email to all parties of record as follows:

James Sabatini
Sabatini & Associates, LLC
1 Market Square
Newington, CT 06111
jsabatini@sabatinilaw.com

422285
Sara R. Simeonidis

4858-5557-8025, v. 1
RETURN DATE: January’, 2023

KEVIN SHEEHAN : SUPERIOR COURT

VS. : WINDHAM JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ECO RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC;
and BARRY SCALPEN : DECEMBER 15, 2022

COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff Kevin Sheehan was and is a Connecticut citizen residing in the Town of

Moosup.

2. Defendant Eco Recovery Solutions, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability

company with a principal place of business located at 90 Arboretum Drive, Suite 300,

Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801.

3. Defendant’s principals include Barry Scalpen and Christopher Morris.

4. Scalpen resides in Connecticut.

5. Morris resides in Connecticut.

6. Defendant Barry Scalpen was and is a Connecticut citizen residing in the Town of

Plainfield.

7. Defendant Eco Recovery owns and operates a facility 200 Technology Park

Drive, Putnam, Connecticut 06260.

8. Defendant Eco Recovery employs three or more employees in Connecticut.

9. Defendant Eco Recovery employed plaintiff.

10. Defendant Eco Recovery employed plaintiff at its Putnam, Connecticut facility.

11. Defendant Scalpen is the Site Supervisor for the Putnam facility.

12. Defendant Scalpen is a supervisory employee.

13. Defendant Scalpen supervised plaintiff.

1
14. Defendant Scalpen has authority to hire and fire.

15. Defendant Eco Recovery hired plaintiff in March 2021.

16. Plaintiffs job title at the time of hire was Operator.

17. Plaintiff was qualified for the job.

18. Plaintiff was a full-time employee.

19. Plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident.

20. Plaintiff sustained injuries in the motorcycle accident.

21. The injuries required medical attention and treatment.

22. Plaintiff went to the hospital for the injuries. He was admitted to the hospital

overnight.

23. The injuries included fractured ribs.

24. Plaintiff had to miss time from work because of the injuries.

25. Defendants were notified of plaintiffs motorcycle accident.

26. Defendants were notified of plaintiff sustaining injuries in the motorcycle

accident. Plaintiff sustained injuries to his left elbow, fractured ribs, hands, fingers, right

shoulder, road rash and left knee.

27. Defendants were notified of plaintiff fracturing ribs in the motorcycle accident.

28. Defendants were notified of plaintiff being admitted to the hospital for the

injuries.

29. Defendants were notified of plaintiff being under the care of a doctor for the

injuries.

30. Defendants were notified of plaintiff requiring a medical leave of absence due to

his injuries.

2
31. Plaintiff had a doctor’s note to provide to the defendants.

32. The doctor’s note stated that plaintiff was admitted to the hospital on October 8,

2022. The note stated that he could return to work on October 24, 2022.

33. Plaintiff provided the doctor’s note to defendants.

34. Plaintiff provided photographs of his injuries to defendants.

35. Plaintiff notified defendants of needing to undergo additional x-rays.

36. On or about October 20, 2022, defendant Eco Recovery terminated plaintiffs

employment.

37. Defendant Scalpen was involved in the decision-making process to terminate

plaintiffs employment.

38. Plaintiff’s injuries are a serious health condition within the meaning of the CT

FMLA—C.G.S. §31-5lkk et seq.

39. Defendant ECO Recovery was a covered employer within the meaning of the CT

FMLA C.G.S. §31-5lkk et seq.
-

40. As Site Supervisor, defendant Scalpen acted directly or indirectly in the interest of

defendant ECO Recovery to employees at the Putnam facility including the plaintiff; therefore,

he is an employer within the meaning of C.G.S. §31-5lkk et seq.

FIRST COUNT
(Interference with the Exercise of Rights under the CT-FMLA as to Defendant Eco
Recovery)

1. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as though fully set

forth herein.

41. Defendant Eco Recovery interfered with plaintiffs rights under the CT-FMLA.

3
42. Defendant Eco Recovery failed to advise plaintiff of his rights under the CT

FMLA.

43. Defendant failed to designate plaintiffs medical leave of absence as CT-FMLA

job protected leave.

44. Defendant denied plaintiff the right to take a CT-FMLA job protected medical

leave.

45. As a result of defendant’s interference, plaintiff suffered and sustained harms and

losses, including but not limited to: lost of employment; lost wages, lost employment benefits,

and other expenses and financial losses that would not otherwise have been incurred.

46. Defendant’s interference was willful.

SECOND COUNT
(Interference with the Exercise of Rights under the CT-FMLA as to Defendant Scalpen)

1. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as though fully set

forth herein.

47. Defendant Scalpen interfered with plaintiffs rights under the CT-FMLA.

48. Defendant Scalpen failed to advise plaintiff of his rights under the CT-FMLA.

49. Defendant Scalpen failed to designate plaintiffs medical leave of absence as CT

FMLA job protected leave.

50. Defendant Scalpen denied plaintiff the right to take a CT-FMLA job protected

medical leave.

51. As a result of defendant Scalpen’s interference, plaintiff suffered and sustained

harms and losses, including but not limited to: lost of employment; lost wages, lost employment

benefits, and other expenses and financial losses that would not otherwise have been incurred.

4
THIRD COUNT
(CT-FMLA Discrimination/Retaliation as to Defendant Eco Recovery)

1. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as though fully set

forth herein.

52. Plaintiff invoked his right to CT-FMLA-qualifying medical leave.

53. Defendant Eco Recovery, by and through its agents and/or employees, retaliated

against the plaintiff for his exercise of rights under the CT-FMLA by terminating his

employment.

54. As a result of defendant’s retaliation, plaintiff suffered and sustained harms and

losses, including but not limited to: lost employment; lost wages, lost job responsibilities, lost

employee benefits, and other expenses and financial losses that would not otherwise have been

incurred.

55. Defendant’s actions have been willful.

FOURTH COUNT
(CT-FMLA Discrimination/Retaliation as to Defendant Scalpen)

1. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as though fully set

forth herein.

56. Plaintiff invoked his right to CT-FMLA-qualifying medical leave.

57. Defendant Scalpen retaliated against the plaintiff for his exercise of rights under

the CT-FMLA by terminating his employment.

58. As a result of defendant’s retaliation, plaintiff suffered and sustained harms and

losses, including but not limited to: lost employment; lost wages, lost job responsibilities, lost

5
employee benefits,
employee benefits, and
and other expenses and
other expenses and financial
financial losses
losses that
that would
would not
not otherwise
otherwise have
have been
been

incurred.
incurred.

59.
59. Defendant's actions
Defendant’s actions have
have been
been willful.

6
DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for appropriate damages including: compensatory

damages; damages for back pay, front pay, lost personal days; punitive damages; attorneys’ fees;

CT-FMLA statutory damages; costs; interest; consequential damages; prejudgment interest;

promotion to full time position; for an injunction requiring the removal of any and all adverse

information contained in plaintiff’s personnel file; for a trial by jury; and for all other just and

proper relief

Hereof fail not but of this writ with your doings thereon make due service and

return according to law.

Dated at Newington, Connecticut this 1 5th day of December 2022.

LLC

Newington, CT 06111
Tel. No.: (860) 667-0839
Fax No.: (860) 667-0867
Email: jsabatinisabatinilaw.com
Juris No. 052654

Please file our appearance
on behalf of the Plaintiff.

James

7
STATEMENT
STATEMENT OF
OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND
AMOUNT IN DEMAND

The amount in
The amount in demand
demand is
is greater
greater than
than $15,000.00
$15,000.00

exclusive of
exclusive attorneys and
of attorneys and costs.
costs.

8
EXHIBIT B
3.

SUMMONS - CIVIL For information on STATE OF CONNECTICUT ~;~~M•~ ~
JD-CV-1 Rev. 2-22 ADA accommodations, SUPERIOR COURT
C.G.S. §§ 51-346, 51-347, 51-349, 51-350, 52-45a, 52-48, 52-259; contact a court clerk or www.jud.ct.gov
•
P.B. §§ 3-1 through 3-21, 8-1, 10-13 go to: www.jud.ct.gov/ADA.
Instructions are on page 2.
❑ Select if amount, legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is LESS than $2,500.
❑x Select if amount, legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is $2,500 or MORE.

❑ Select if claiming other relief in addition to, or in place of, money or damages.

TO: Any proper officer
By authority of the State of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to make due and legal service of this summons and attached complaint.
Address of court clerk (Number, street, town and zip code) Telephone number of clerk Return Date (Must be a Tuesday)

155 Church Street, Putnam 06260 (860 ) 928 — 7749 March 5, 2024
❑x Judicial District At (City/Town) Case type code (See list on page 2)
G.A.
❑ Housing Session ❑ Number: Putnam Major: M Minor: 90

For the plaintiff(s) enter the appearance of:
Name and address of attorney, law firm or plaintiff if self-represented (Number, sfreet, town and zip code) Juris number (if attomey or law firm)

Sabatini and Associates, LLC, One Market Square, Newington, CT 06111 052654
Telephone number Signature of plaintiff (if self-represented)
(860 ) 667 — 0839
The attorney or law firm appearing for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff if E-mail address for delivery of papers under Section 10-13 of the
Connecticut Practice Book (if agreed)
self-represented, agrees to accept papers (service) electronically
in this case under Section 10-13 of the Connecticut Practice Book. ❑ Yes ❑X No

Parties Name (Last, First, Middle lnitial) and address of each party (Number; street; P.O. Box; town; sfate; zip; country, if not USA)
First Name: SHEEHAN, Kevin P-01
plaintiff Address: 221 Lake Street, Moosup, CT 06354
Additional Name: P-02
plaintiff Address:
First Name: Eco Recovery Solutions, LLC, 90 Arboretum Drive, Suite 300, Portsmouth, NH 03801 D-01
defendant Address: Agent: Corpora ton Service Company, Goodwin Sq., 225 Asylum St., 20th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103
Additional Name: D-02
defendant Address:
Additional Name: D-03
defendant Address:
Additional Name: D-04
defendant Address:

Total number of plaintiffs: 1 Total number of defendants: 1 ❑ Form JD-CV-2 attached for additional parties

Notice to each defendant
1. You are being sued. This is a summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached states the claims the plaintiff is making against you.
2. To receive further notices, you or your attorney must file an Appearance (form JD-CL-12) with the clerk at the address above. Generally,
it must be filed on or before the second day after the Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. You do not have to come to
court on the Return Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to appear.
3. If you or your attorney do not file an Appearance on time, a default judgment may be entered against you. You can get an Appearance
form at the court address above, or on-line at https://jud.ct.gov/webfomis/.
4. If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim being made against you in this lawsuit, you should immediately contact
your insurance representative. Other actions you may take are described in the Connecticut Practice Book, which may be found in a
superior court law library or on-line at https://www.jud.ct.gov/pb.htm.
5. If you have questions about the summons and complaint, you should talk to an attorney.
The court staff is not allowed tg...g'e advje,on legal m~tters.
Date Signed (Sign an ele prop ox) Q Commissioner of Superior Court Name of person signing
02/06/2024 ~ ❑ Clerk l James V. Sabatini
Ifthis summons is sit1d b.eíerk: ForCourt Use Only
a. The signing has been done so that the plaintiff(s) will not be denied access to the courts. .~'@1~ C PY, ATTEST
b. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff(s) to ensure that service is made in the manner provided by law.
c. The court staff is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit.
d. The Clerk signing this summons at the request of the plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any an F. Zaniewski
errors or omissions in the summons, any allegations contained in the complaint, or the service of the
summons or complaint. State Marshal
Date Dock
I certify I have read and l Signed (Self-represented plaintiff)
understand the above:
2
RETURN DATE: March 5, 2024

KEVIN SHEEHAN . SUPERIOR COURT

VS. . WINDHAM JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ECO RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC : FEBRUARY 6, 2024

COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff Kevin Sheehan was and is a Connecticut citizen residing in the Town of

Moosup.

2. Defendant Eco Recovery Solutions, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability

company with a principal place of business located at 90 Arboretum Drive, Suite 300,

Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801.

3. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the Connecticut Fair

Employment Practices Ac (CFEPA).

4. Defendant Eco Recovery owns and operates a facility 200 Technology Park

Drive, Putnam, Connecticut 06260.

5. Defendant Eco Recovery employed plaintiff.

6. Defendant Eco Recovery employed plaintiff at its Putnam, Connecticut facility.

7. •Defendant employs Barry Scaplen as the Site Supervisor for the Putnam facility.

8. Scaplen is a supervisory employee.

9. Scaplen supervised plaintiff.

10. Scaplen has authority to hire and fire.

11. Defendant Eco Recovery hired plaintiff in March 2021.

12. Plaintiff's job title at the time of hire was Operator.

13. Plaintiff was qualified for the job.

1
14. Plaintiff was a full-time employee.

15. Plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident.

16. Plaintiff sustained physical injuries in the motorcycle accident.

17. The injuries required medical attention and treatment.

18. Plaintiff went to the hospital for the injuries. He was admitted to the hospital

overnight.

19. The injuries included fractured ribs.

20. Plaintiff had to miss time from work because of the injuries.

21. Defendant was notified of plaintiffs motorcycle accident.

22. Defendant was notified of plaintiff sustaining injuries in the motorcycle accident.

Plaintiff sustained injuries to his left elbow, fractured ribs, hands, fingers, right shoulder, road

rash and left knee.

23. Defendant was notified of plaintiff fracturing ribs in the motorcycle accident.

24. Defendant was notified of plaintiff being admitted to the hospital for the injuries.

25. Defendant was notified of plaintiff being under the care of a doctor for the

injuries.

26. Defendant was notified of plaintiff requiring a medical leave of absence due to his

injuries.

27. Plaintiff had a doctor's note to provide to the defendant.

28. The doctor's note stated that plaintiff was admitted to the hospital on October 8,

2022. The note stated that he could return to work on October 24, 2022.

29. Plaintiff provided the doctor's note to defendant.

30. Plaintiff provided photographs of his injuries to defendant.

2
3 l. Plaintiff notified defendant of needing to undergo additional x-rays.

32. On or about October 20, 2022, defendant Eco Recovery terminated plaintiff's

employment.

33. Scaplen was involved in the decision-making process to terminate plaintiff's

employment.

34. Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with the

accommodation of a leave of absence to undergo medical attention and treatment in order to

return to work.

35. Plaintiff's physical injuries and the effects thereof are chronic within the meaning

of the CFEPA.

36. Prior to be terminating, Complainant notified Respondent that he wanted to get

back to work as soon as possible but would be physically limited in what he could do.

Specifically, he would be temporarily unable to climb into a loader or engage in lifting.

37. Defendant perceived plaintiff as disabled at the time it made the decision to

terminate plaintiffs employment.

38. On or about November 14, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant

with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO).

39. On or about November 17, 2023, plaintiff received a release of jurisdiction issued

by the CHRO (attached hereto as Ex.1).

FIRST COUNT
(Disability Discrimination in Violation of C.G.S. §46a-60(b)(1))

1. Plaintiff repeats the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 39 above as if fully

incorporated herein.

3
40. Defendant, by and through its agents, servants, and/or employees, violated the

Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act C.G.S. §46a-60a et seq. in one or more of the

following ways.

(a) In that defendant interfered with plaintiff's privilege of employment on the basis

of his disability (actual or perceived as);

(b) In that defendant discriminated against the plaintiff in such a way that adversely

affected his status as an employee;

employees;

(d) In that defendant terminated plaintiff's employment on account of his disability;

(e) In that defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.

41. As a result of defendant's unequal treatment and discrimination, plaintiff has

been deprived of his employment and equal employment opportunities because of his disability.

42. As a result of defendant's discrimination of the plaintiff, plaintiff has been

deprived of income, wages, employee benefits and has incurred medical bills and related

expenses.

43. As a further result of defendant's discrimination, plaintiff has suffered emotional

pain, suffering, embarrassment, shame, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life,

impairment of his personal and professional reputation, damage caused by the Plaintiffs loss of

insurances and savings and investment opportunities, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary

losses.

44. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer injuries and losses as a result of

defendant's wrongful and discriminatory acts.

4
45. Defendant exhibited reckless regard to plaintiff's rights under the CFEPA.

SECOND COUNT
(Failure to Accommodate in Violation of C.G.S. §46a-60(b)(1))

Plaintiff repeats the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 45 above as if fully

incorporated herein.

46. Defendant, by and through its agents and/or employees, violated the Connecticut

Fair Employment Practices Act C.G.S. §46a-60a et seq. in one or more of the following ways.

(a) In that defendant failed to accommodate plaintiff's disability;

(b) In that defendant failed to engage in good faith with the reasonable

accommodation interactive process.

47. As a result of defendant's failure to accommodate, plaintiff has been deprived of

income, wages, employee benefits and has incurred medical bills.

48. As a further result of defendant's failure to accommodate, plaintiff has suffered

emotional pain, suffering, embarrassment, shame, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of

enjoyment of life, impairment of his personal and professional reputation, damage caused by the

Plaintiffs loss of insurances and savings and investment opportunities, and other pecuniary and

non-pecuniary losses.

49. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer injuries and losses as a result of

defendant's wrongful and discriminatory acts.

THIRD COUNT
(Retaliation In Violation of Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act C.G.S. §46a-
60(b)(1))

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as though fully set

forth herein.

5
50. Defendant, by and through its agents and/or employees, violated the Connecticut

Fair Employment Practices Act C.G.S. §46a-609(b)(1) et seq. in one or more of the following

ways.

a. In that defendant retaliated against the plaintiff for requesting a reasonable

accommodation.

51. As a result of defendant's violation of Connecticut Fair Employment Practices

Act C.G.S. §46a-60(a)(4), plaintiff suffered damages including: loss of employment, loss of

income and wages and benefits, and harm to his professional reputation.

52. As a further result of defendant's retaliatory conduct, plaintiff has suffered

emotional pain, suffering, embarrassment, shame, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of

enjoyment of life, impairment of his personal and professional reputation, damage caused by the

Plaintiffs loss of insurances and savings and investment opportunities, and other pecuniary and

non-pecuniary losses.

53. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer injuries as a result of defendant's

wrongful and retaliatory acts.

54. Defendant exhibited reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights under the CFEPA.

C~
DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for appropriate damages including: compensatory

damages; damages for back pay, front pay, lost personal days, emotional distress; loss

pension/retirement benefits; attorneys' fees; costs; interest; CFEPA punitive damages;

prejudgment interest; post judgment interest; job reinstatement; front pay; for an injunction

requiring the removal of any and all adverse information contained in plaintiff's personnel file;

for a trial by jury; and for all otherjust and proper relief.

Hereof fail not but of this writ with your doings thereon make due service and

return according to law.

Dated at Newington, Connecticut this day of February, 2

Jam . Sabati ', E ire
ATINI A SSOCIATES, LLC
1 Market Squre
Newington, CT 06111
Tel. No.: (860) 667-0839
Fax No.: (860) 667-0867
Email: jsabatini e,sabatinilaw.com
Juris No. 052654

Please file our appe nc
on behalf of the P intiff.

James 31: Sabatini
COPY, ATTEST;

AI F. Zaniewski
State Marshal
,Harlford County
7
STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND

The amount in demand is greater than $15,000.00

exclusive of attorneys and costs.
EXHIBIT 1
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Kevin Sheehan
COMPLAINANT
CHRO No. 2340183
vs. EEOC No. 16A202300293

Eco Recovery Solutions, LLC
RESPONDENT

RELEASE OF JURISDICTION

The Commission on Human Rights and Opporhmities hereby releases its jurisdiction over the above-identified
complaint. The Complainant is authorized to commence a civil action in accordance with CONN. GEN.
STAT. § 46a-100 against the Respondent in the Superior Court for the judicial district in which the
discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred, in which the Respondent transacts business or in which
the Complainant resides. If this action involves a state agency or official, it may be brought in the Superior
Court for the judicial district of Hartford.

A copy of any civil action brought pursuant to this release must be served on the Commission at ROJ ct. ov or
at 450 Columbus Blvd., Suite 2, Hartford, CT 06103 at the same time all other parties are served. Electronic
service is preferred. THE COIVIlVIISSION MUST BE SERVED BECAUSE IT HAS A RIGHT TO
INTERVENE IN ANY ACTION BASED ON A RELEASE OF JURISDICTION PURSUANT
TO CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46a-103.

The Complainant must bring an action in Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of this release and within
two years of the date of filing the complaint with the Commission unless circumstances tolling the
statute of limitations are present.

DATE: November 17, 2023 Tanya A. Hughes, Executive Director

cc:
Complainant's Attorney: James Sabatini, Esq.
Sabatini and Associates
jsabatini(c~sabatinilaw.com

Respondent's Atty.: Holly Cini, Esq.
Sara Simeonidis, Esq.
Jackson Lewis PC
holly.cini iacksoniewis.com
sara.simeonidis(lacksonlewis.com ATRUE COPY, ATTEST
Case File
J Alan F, ZaniewSki
State Marshal
Hattfor GUrlty

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 28, 2024

Case Filing Date

February 27, 2024

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for SHEEHAN, KEVIN v. ECO RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties