No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer and remanded the case, finding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of a prima facie case of retaliation under the workers' compensation statute and disputed facts regarding pretext, allowing the wrongful termination claim to proceed to trial.
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for the alleged wrongful termination of his employment in violation of the statute (§ 31- 290a) prohibiting discrimination against employees exercising their rights under the Workers' Compensation Act (§ 31-275 et seq.). The plaintiff had worked for the defendant since 2002, and, every year, received a seasonal layoff notice with recall. In October, 2016, the plain- tiff sustained a work injury, received medical treatment, and filed a workers' compensation claim. Approximately one month after the plain- tiff filed his claim, he received a seasonal layoff notice without recall, terminating his employment. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff in violation of § 31-290a. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff did not meet his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the burden shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792), the plaintiff having presented evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action: the plaintiff presented evidence that he sustained a work injury, reported his injury to the defendant, received medical treatment for his injury, filed a workers' compensation claim arising out of his work injury, and, thereafter, approximately two weeks before he received his seasonal layoff notice without recall, the defendant made the decision to terminate his employ- ment, which showed a sufficiently close temporal connection between the exercise of his rights protected under the act and the defendant's adverse action against him; moreover, the plaintiff produced
Gibilisco v. Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. – Plain English Summary
What Happened
Gibilisco worked for Tilcon Connecticut for over a decade and regularly received seasonal layoff notices. In October 2016, he suffered a work injury, sought medical treatment, and filed a workers' compensation claim. The company then terminated his employment, which he believed was illegal retaliation for using his workers' compensation rights.
What the Court Decided
Connecticut's Appellate Court ruled in Gibilisco's favor. The court found that he had presented enough evidence to support his claim that the company fired him in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Rather than deciding the case immediately, the court sent it back to trial so a jury could hear both sides and determine the full facts.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling protects employees who get injured at work. It says that employers cannot punish workers for filing legitimate workers' compensation claims. If a company fires someone shortly after a work injury claim, the worker now has legal grounds to challenge the termination, even if the employer claims other reasons for the layoff.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.