Honeck v. Nicolock Paving Stones of New England, LLC

3 Citing cases

  1. Honeck v. Nicolock

    247 F. App'x 306 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Honeck appeals from an August 23, 2006 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Nicolock Paving Stones of New England, LLC ("Nicolock") on Appellant's claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, et seq. See Honeck v. Nicolock Paving Stones, Civil No. 3:04cv1577 (JBA), 2006 WL 2474950, at *1 (D.Conn. Aug. 25, 2006). We assume the parties' familiarity with the procedural history, facts, and relevant issues on appeal.

  2. Laiscell v. Bd. of Educ.

    20-cv-01463 (VLB) (D. Conn. Sep. 22, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    “An employer's good-faith belief that an employee has committed misconduct provides the employer with a nondiscriminatory reason for termination, whether or not the misconduct occurred.” Honeck v. Nicolock Paving Stones of New England, LLC, No. 3:04cv1577 (JBA), 2006 WL 2474950, at *7 (D. Conn. Aug. 25, 2006) (citing Roge, 257 F.3d at 169).

  3. Brescia v. United Illuminating Co.

    AANCV146016031S (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 17, 2016)

    " An employer's good-faith belief that an employee has committed misconduct provides the employer with a nondiscriminatory reason for termination, whether or not the misconduct occurred." Honeck v. Nicolock Paving Stones of New England, LLC, Docket No. 3:04 CV 1577 (JBA), 2006 WL 2474950, *7 (D.Conn. August 25, 2006), aff'd, 247 F.App'x 306 (2d Cir. 2007); accord Jeunes v. Potter, Docket No. CIV 308CV1218 (HBF), 2009 WL 2883060, *10 (D.Conn. September 3, 2009), aff'd, 382 F.App'x 2 (2d Cir. 2010) (" [i]n determining whether a plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence of pretext, the key question is not whether the stated basis for termination actually occurred, but whether the defendant believed it to have occurred" [internal quotation marks omitted]). The defendant argues that the " plaintiff's case is premised entirely on his denial of the wrongdoing cited by defendant as the reason for the discharge decision--in particular, repeated occasions of misusing company time and neglectful oversight of his subordinates' timekeeping practices resulting in a failure to unearth fraudulent reporting of work hours topped off by a bizarre threat of workplace violence--but the denials ring