I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must accept nonmovant's evidence as true and view the record in the light most favorable to her. SeeWeinstock v. Columbia Univ. , 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir.2000) ; Emonds v. Newman Chrysler, Inc. , No. 3:03–cv–1114, 2005 WL 293493, at *2, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1692, at *5 (D.Conn. Feb. 4, 2005).Born in 1962, Ms. Mendillo began working at American Skandia Life Assurance Corporation (“Skandia”) in or about April 1996. Plaintiff's Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement [Doc. No. 69-24] ¶¶ 1-2.
On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must accept nonmovant's evidence as true and view the record in the light most favorable to him. See Weinstock, 224 F.3d at 41; Emonds v. Newman Chrysler, Inc., No. 3:03-cv-1114, 2005 WL 293493, at *2, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1692, at *5 (D. Conn. Feb. 4, 2005). The following is a recitation of the facts of this case, according to this standard.
See 49 U.S.C. § 32710(b); Byrne v. Autohaus On Edens, Inc., 488 F.Supp. 276, 280 (N.D.Ill.1980); Emonds v. Newman Chrysler, Inc., 2005 WL 293493 *2 (D.Conn. Feb. 4, 2005); Carrasco v. Fiore Enter., 985 F.Supp. 931, 935-39 (D.Ariz.1997). Plaintiff's action was filed on November 30, 2007.