Case Name: John P. NAIDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ECOLAB, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-28
Citations: 125 F. App'x 368
Docket Number: No. 04-2422
Parties: John P. NAIDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ECOLAB, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Present: NEWMAN, WESLEY, and HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 368–368

Head Matter:
John P. NAIDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ECOLAB, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-2422.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 28, 2005.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Garfield Goodrum, Boston, Massachusetts (John P. Naiden, Arlington, Vermont, on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.
Tasos C. Paindiris, Jackson Lewis LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for Defendants-Appellees.
Present: NEWMAN, WESLEY, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. Appellant John Naiden filed a complaint against defendant, alleging age discrimination under both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623, and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. GemStat. § 46a-60, and, under Connecticut law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional or negligent physical injury. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant on all counts.
Naiden raises two arguments on appeal. First, he claims that the district court improperly dismissed his claims under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act for failure to timely file his complaint. Second, Naiden argues that he made sufficient allegations to support his claims for the negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We find both of these arguments without merit and affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by Judge Covello.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.