Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00410-DJS Document 58 Filed 01/24/2005 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
x
crvir. Acr1oN No.
Plaintiff, : 3:03 CV 0410 (MRK)
v.
ACMI CORPORATION,
Defendant. : JANUARY 21, 2005
x
MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE OVERSIZED BRIEF
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(a), plaintiff respectfully requests permission to file an oversized
memorandum of 63 pages in opposition to defendant ACMI Corporation’s Motion for Summary
Judgment dated October 18, 2004.
In support of this request, undersigned counsel states that the additional pages are
required so that she can clearly present plaintiffs opposition to defendanfs motion. Defendant
moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs federal and state law discrimination and retaliation
claims on the grounds that 1) the evidence is insufficient to support plaintiffs claims, including,
inter alia, that the harassment plaintiff suffered was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute
a hostile work environment, 2) ACMI cannot be held liable for the harassment to which plaintiff
was subjected by her coworkers, 3) plaintiff was not entitled to workplace accommodations
because she was not "unable to work," 4) plaintiff was not denied any reasonable
accommodations, 5) plaintiff was not constructively discharged, 6) plaintiffs retaliation and
constructive discharge claims are barred by her application for Social Security disability
insurance [SSDI] benefits and total disability from work, 7) Connecticut law does not recognize a

Case 3:03-cv-00410-DJS Document 58 Filed O1/24/2005 Page 2 of 3
claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodations to a disabled employee, and 8) plaintiffs
administrative complaint was not timely filed with the Connecticut Commission on Human
Rights and Opportunities and, therefore, her state law discrimination claims are barred.
Defendant also moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs state law claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress [HED] on the grounds that defendant’s conduct was not "extreme
and outrageous" as a matter of law. In addition, defendant argues that plaintiffs IIED claim is
barred on the basis that she failed to exhaust ACMI’s grievance procedures prior to tiling suit.
Finally, defendant argues that plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages because she cannot
establish that defendant acted with "malice or reckless indifference" to plaintiff s rights.
Therefore, the brief requires extensive legal support.
In addition, the case involves a complicated factual backgrotmd. Defendant filed an 7l —
paragraph Local Rule 56(a)(l) Statement in this case. In fact, many of the facts are in dispute.
Therefore, the brief requires a detailed explanation of the factual support for plaintiffs claims
and citations to the record.
Undersigned counsel has attempted to reduce the length of the memorandum, but has not
succeeded in meeting the applicable page limitation. Attorney Jonathan Sterling, who represents
defendant in this action, does not obj ect to this motion. Therefore, plaintiff respectfully requests
permission to file an oversized memorandum with the Court.
2

Case 3:03-cv-00410-DJS Document 58 Filed O1/24/2005 Page 3 of 3
THE PLAINTIFF, HEIDI E. SCHROEDER
1
KATHRYN EMMETT
Federal Bar No. ct05 605
‘ CHRISTINE CAULFIELD
Federal Bar No. ctl9l15
EMMETT & GLANDER
45 Franklin Street
Stamford, CT 06901
(203) 324-7744
kemmettgébemmettandglandencom
ccauliieldgiileniniettandglandercom
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, this 21S‘ day of
January, 2005, to:
James M. Sconzo, Esq.
Jonathan C. Sterling, Esq.
Halloran & Sage, LLP
One Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103.4303
Kathryn Emmett
3 .