Case 3:21-cv-01021-MPS Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`
`NADESHA MORRIS,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`vs.
`
`:
`
`‘
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`ICARE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC .
`
`d/b/a 60 WEST
`Defendant
`
`
`:
`
`'
`
`JULY 26, 2021
`
`I.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1.
`
`This Court has original subj ect matter jurisdiction over this Action under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1341 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5, insofar as the matters in controversy are brought pursuant
`
`to the recently-passed legislation known as the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which
`
`amended ceitain provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2612 and 2620 et
`
`seq., and enacted certain leave provisions under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.
`
`2.
`
`Venue in the District of Connecticut is proper because at all times relevant, Plaintiff
`
`resided in Connecticut, Plaintiff worked in Connecticut, Defendant is a Connecticut limited
`
`liability company, and has its principal place of business in Connecticut.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`The Plaintiff, Nadesha Morris was at all times set forth herein a resident of
`
`Windsor, Connecticut.
`
`4.
`
`The Defendant, ICARE Health Management, LLC d/b/a 60 West was at all times
`
`set forth herein a company organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with a business
`
`address of 341 Bidwell Street, Manchester, CT 06040
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`
`NADESHA MORRIS,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`vs.
`
`:
`
`‘
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`ICARE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC .
`
`d/b/a 60 WEST
`Defendant
`
`
`:
`
`'
`
`JULY 26, 2021
`
`I.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1.
`
`This Court has original subj ect matter jurisdiction over this Action under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1341 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5, insofar as the matters in controversy are brought pursuant
`
`to the recently-passed legislation known as the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which
`
`amended ceitain provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2612 and 2620 et
`
`seq., and enacted certain leave provisions under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.
`
`2.
`
`Venue in the District of Connecticut is proper because at all times relevant, Plaintiff
`
`resided in Connecticut, Plaintiff worked in Connecticut, Defendant is a Connecticut limited
`
`liability company, and has its principal place of business in Connecticut.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`The Plaintiff, Nadesha Morris was at all times set forth herein a resident of
`
`Windsor, Connecticut.
`
`4.
`
`The Defendant, ICARE Health Management, LLC d/b/a 60 West was at all times
`
`set forth herein a company organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with a business
`
`address of 341 Bidwell Street, Manchester, CT 06040
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01021—MPS Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 2 of 7
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`5.
`
`At all times relevant, the Defendant was and is a company with fewer than 500
`
`employees subject to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), which itself
`
`comprises the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (“EPSLA”) and the Emergency Family and
`
`Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”).
`
`6.
`
`The Defendant provides management
`
`to skilled nursing centers and other
`
`healthcare providers including the 60 West skilled nursing home in Rocky Hill, Connecticut.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`hours a week.
`
`Plaintiff commenced her employment with the Defendant in 2013 as a CNA.
`
`Plaintiff was employed on a per diem basis but still generally worked forty plus
`
`9.
`
`In December of 2019, Plaintiff applied for and was approved for FMLA leave for
`
`the birth of her child.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff gave birth on January 29, 2020.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff was released to return to work on or about March 25, 2020.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff has three other children in addition to her child born on January 29, 2020.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff was unable to actually return to work on or about March 25 , 2020 due to
`
`the fact schools and daycares shut down as a result of the COVID—l 9 pandemic.
`
`14.
`
`On March 10, 2020, Ned Lamont, Governor of the State of Connecticut, declared a
`
`public health emergency throughout the State in response to the global pandemic of COVID-19,
`
`which had at that juncture “resulted in the spread of infections in Connecticut and surrounding
`
`states[.]”
`
`15.
`
`On March 15, 2020, Governor Lamont issued Executive Order No. 7C, which, inter
`
`alia, cancelled all public school classes “[t]o promote and secure the safety and protection of
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01021—MPS Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 3 of 7
`
`children in schools related to the risks of COVID—l9[,]” and “encouraged” “[p]rivate schools and
`
`other non—public schools
`
`to follow the same protocol.”
`
`16.
`
`On March 20, 2020, Govemor Lamont issued Executive Order No. 7H, which, inter
`
`alia,
`
`imposed restrictions on workplaces for non-essential businesses including the “100%”
`
`reduction in the workforces of non-essential businesses or not-for-profit entities.
`
`17.
`
`On April 1, 2020 FFCRA went into effect
`
`18.
`
`As a result of the COVID—19 pandemic Plaintiffs children’s school and daycare
`
`closed leaving Plaintiff with no childcare.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff asked the Defendant Human Resources Representative if she could return
`
`to work on a per diem basis which would allow Plaintiff to adjust her own hours.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff was told she would have to apply to be per diem which request was then
`
`denied by the Director or Nursing.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff was told that the fact she did not have childcare was her personal problem
`
`and not an accommodation the company would provide.
`
`22.
`
`Towards the end of May 2020, the Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter asking her to
`
`resign and the Plaintiff refused.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant terminated Plaintiff’ s Employment on June 5, 2020.
`
`COUNT ONE:
`
`FFCRA INTERFERENCE IN VIOLATION OF 29 U.S.C. § 2615 AND
`THE EMERGENCY PAID SICK LEAVE ACT
`
`24.
`
`All preceding paragraphs are incorporated into this Count as if fully set out herein.
`
`25.
`
`The Defendant is a company with fewer than 500 employees, and was at all times
`
`relevant subject to the FFCRA.
`
`26.
`
`The Plaintiff was eligible for leave and paid leave under the FFCRA and the
`
`EPSLA.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01021—MPS Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 4 of 7
`
`27.
`
`The Defendant unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff’s exercise or attempted
`
`exercise of rights under the FFCRA and the EPSLA, in one or more of the following ways, in that
`
`the Defendant:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Failed to grant Plaintiff leave under the F FCRA and the EPSLA;
`
`Failed to notify the Plaintiff that her request for leave was protected under
`
`the FFCRA; and
`
`0.
`
`failed to pay the Plaintiff for any and all leave in accordance with 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2620(b)(2)(A) et seq. and the EPSLA.
`
`28.
`
`The Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as aforesaid, deprived the Plaintiff of her rights
`
`under the FFCRA and the EPSLA.
`
`29.
`
`The Defendant’s unlawful conduct was not in good faith and the Defendant did not
`
`have reasonable grounds for believing its actions were in conformance with the FFCRA or the
`
`EPSLA.
`
`30.
`
`As a result of the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as aforesaid, the Plaintiff has
`
`sustained lost wages, has been deprived of benefits to which he was entitled, has been deprived of
`
`the benefits of gainful employment into the future, has incurred or will incur attorneys’ fees and
`
`costs in securing his rights through this Action.
`
`COUNT TWO:
`
`FFCRA RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 29 U.S.C. § 2615 AND
`THE EMERGENCY PAID SICK LEAVE ACT
`
`31.
`
`All preceding paragraphs are incorporated into this Count as if fully set out herein.
`
`32.
`
`The Defendant is a company with fewer than 500 employees, and was at all times
`
`relevant subject to the FFCRA and the EPSLA.
`
`33.
`
`The Plaintiff was eligible for leave and paid leave under the FFCRA and the
`
`EPSLA.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01021—MPS Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 5 of 7
`
`34.
`
`The Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she exercised or attempted to
`
`exercise her rights to leave under the FFCRA by, inter alia, informing the Defendant of her
`
`inability to report to work on the basis of a qualifying need related to a public health emergency
`
`in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 26l2(a)(l)(F) and § 2620, namely, that Plaintiff was “unable to
`
`work. . .due to a need for leave to care for” her minor children, whose school or daycare “ha[ve]
`
`been closed. . .due to a public health emergency.”
`
`35.
`
`The Defendant unlawfully retaliated against the Plaintiff due to her exercise or
`
`attempt to exercise rights under the FFCRA, in one or more of the following ways, in that
`
`Defendant:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Terminated Plaintiff s employment;
`
`Failed to notify the Plaintiff that his request for leave was protected under
`
`the FFCRA; and
`
`c.
`
`failed to pay the Plaintiff for any and all leave in accordance with 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2620(b)(2)(A) et seq. and the EPSLA.
`
`36.
`
`The Defendant’s unlawful conduct was not in good faith and the Defendant did not
`
`have reasonable grounds for believing its actions were in conformance with the FFCRA or the
`
`EPSLA.
`
`37.
`
`As a result of the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as aforesaid, the Plaintiff has
`
`sustained lost wages, has been deprived of benefits to which he was entitled, has been deprived of
`
`the benefits of gainful employment into the future, has incurred or will incur attorneys’ fees and
`
`costs in securing his rights through this Action.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01021—MPS Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 6 of 7
`
`COUNT THREE:
`
`Retaliation Pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act 29 U.S.C. § 2612
`et seq.
`
`1.
`
`The Plaintiff repeats and re—alleges Paragraphs 1 through 23 above as Paragraphs
`
`1 through 23 of this Third Count as if fully set forth herein.
`
`24.
`
`The Plaintiff was an eligible employee under the FMLA, the Plaintiff was entitled
`
`to a leave under the FMLA, and the Plaintiff requested and utilized medical leave under the
`
`FMLA.
`
`25.
`
`The Plaintiff was retaliated against and subject to adverse employment actions for
`
`attempting to exercise and/or exercising her rights under the FMLA in that she was denied per
`
`diem employment and terminated because of her use of FMLA leave.
`
`26.
`
`As a result of the Defendant’s violation of the FMLA, the Plaintiff has suffered a
`
`loss of wages and employment benefits and will continue to suffer the loss of same, all to her
`
`loss and detriment.
`
`27.
`
`As a fuither result of the foregoing conduct of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has
`
`incun'ed, and will continue to incur, attorney’s fees and costs in order to obtain the rights to which
`
`she is entitled.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01021—MPS Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 7 of 7
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff herby requests a trial by jury and prays for the following relief:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Money Damages for lost wages and employment benefits;
`
`Reinstatement or Front Pay in lieu thereof;
`
`Reasonable attorneys’ fees;
`
`Interest;
`
`Liquidated Damages;
`
`Costs of this Action; and
`
`All other awardable relief.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF,
`NABESHA MORRIS
`
`
`/
`'
`BY:
`Megai '
`CICC
`364 Fra
`
`(ct2 813)
`icha
`o & CICCHIE Lo, LLP
`1111 Avenue
`
`Hartford, CT 06114
`Phone: 860-296-3457
`
`Fax: 860-296-0676
`
`Email: mmichaudgtgcicchielloesg.Com
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
