Hartford v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities

Citations

• 208 Conn. App. 755

Syllabus

The plaintiff employer appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities sustaining a claim of ancestry discrimination brought by the plaintiff's employee, the defendant P, who is Vietnamese. P filed an affidavit of illegal discrimi- natory practice with the commission following the termination of his employment as a probationary police officer. P claimed that, after two negative interactions with a sergeant, K, during which K questioned P's ancestry and language skills and P stated that he would file a grievance against K, other sergeants began complaining about his performance, motivating the plaintiff to terminate his employment. The trial court rendered judgment affirming the decision of the commission, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the trial court improperly held that there was substantial evidence in the record that P's termina- tion from employment arose under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of discrimination: although K's remarks to P were despicable and K filed a memorandum criticizing P following their negative interac- tions, there was not substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of a causal connection between K's remarks and the plaintiff's decision to terminate P from employment or that K played any role in the decision to terminate P's employment, as there was no evidence that the chief of police, who did terminate P's employment, ever saw K's memorandum, K's memorandum did not recommend that P be termi- nated, P had received both negative reports before his interactions with K and positive reports after those interactions, and, contrary to the findings of the commission's human rights referee that the sergeants who gave P negative reports following his interactions with K were influenced by K's animus because they were promoted at the same time and socialized with K, the other sergeants testified that there was no particular comradery amo