Skip to main content

Rossova v. Charter Communications, LLC

Conn. App. Ct.April 12, 2022No. AC43153Cited 6 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Alexander; Clark; Palmer
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationWrongful Termination

Excerpt

The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the alleged wrongful termination of her employment by the defendant, which she claimed was the result of pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employ- ment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.). The defendant hired the plaintiff to work in its brand and creative strategy department. S, the only other employee in the department, was her supervisor. According to the plain- tiff, the two had a good working relationship through the end of her first month of employment, when the plaintiff informed S that she was pregnant. Thereafter, the relationship deteriorated. According to the plaintiff, S no longer invited her to collaborate on projects, became curt and unfriendly, and began to micromanage and criticize her work. S also started to document the plaintiff's alleged performance deficiencies. Less than five weeks after the plaintiff disclosed her pregnancy, S informed the plaintiff that her employment was being terminated for her poor performance. Following a trial to the jury, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability. Thereafter, the trial court denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and awarded the plaintiff economic damages in addition to prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, and attorney's fees. On appeal to this court, the defendant challenged only one element of the plaintiff's prima facie case, namely, whether she established that the termination of her employment occurred under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of discrimination. Held: 1. The trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict: a. The plaintiff satisfied her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination: there was sufficient evidence in the record from which a rational fact finder could have inferred that the termination of the plaintiff's employment was motivated by discriminatory bia

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Rossova worked for Charter Communications in their brand and creative strategy department, supervised by an employee referred to as "S." She claimed that Charter fired her because she was pregnant, which would violate Connecticut's Fair Employment Practices Act. According to Rossova, she had a good working relationship with her supervisor until issues arose related to her pregnancy. She sued Charter for pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination, seeking compensation for losing her job. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled in favor of Rossova, finding that Charter Communications had wrongfully terminated her employment due to pregnancy discrimination. This means the court determined there was sufficient evidence that her firing was connected to her pregnancy rather than legitimate work-related reasons. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling reinforces important protections for pregnant employees in Connecticut. Workers cannot be fired simply because they are pregnant or expect to become pregnant. If employers terminate pregnant workers without valid, non-discriminatory reasons, they can be held legally accountable. This case demonstrates that courts will examine the circumstances around pregnancy-related firings and protect workers' rights when discrimination occurs. Pregnant employees who face similar treatment should know they have legal recourse under state employment laws.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.