No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding the plaintiff's claims of gender discrimination and retaliation under Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act § 46a-60. The plaintiff's termination was based on substantiated allegations of mismanagement and failure to respect authority, not gender discrimination.
The plaintiff, a director of member services at the defendant C Co., sought to recover damages from various defendants for alleged gender discrimi- nation and retaliation in violation of a provision (§ 46a-60) of the Con- necticut Fair Employment Practices Act. A few years after the plaintiff was hired, several employees in her department resigned while she was the director, and a few of those employees expressed displeasure with working for her and voiced complaints about her during exit interviews. In response, the defendant D, the executive director of C Co., instructed B, the director of human resources of C Co., to conduct an investigation into the allegations, which resulted in the termination of the plaintiff's employment. The plaintiff then commenced an action against C Co. and a related entity and a separate action against D, B and the defendant T, the deputy director of C Co., with whom the plaintiff did not get along. The two actions were consolidated for the purposes of discovery, pretrial pleadings and trial. Subsequently, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in each case, arguing that there were no genuine issues of material fact that would permit an inference of gender discrimi- nation or, in the alternative, that her termination was a pretext for gender discrimination. The trial court granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the trial court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in each case, as no reasonable jury could have concluded that the plaintiff's termination was motivated in whole or in part by gender discrimination: the plaintiff did not demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants' legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification for her discharge, namely, repeated charges of mismanagement of employees and failure to respect authority as detailed in the report of the investigation, was a pretext for unlawful discriminatio
Fiveash v. DeLong: Court Rules Against Discrimination Claim
What Happened
A director of member services at the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities sued her employer, claiming she was treated unfairly because of her gender and was retaliated against after complaining about discrimination. She pointed to the fact that several employees in her department resigned while she was their supervisor, and those departing workers had complained about her management style.
What the Court Decided
The Connecticut court sided with the employer. The judge found no credible evidence that gender discrimination or retaliation actually occurred. Instead, the court determined that the director was terminated based on legitimate, documented reasons: poor management practices and failure to follow proper authority—not because of her gender.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that simply pointing to employee departures isn't enough to prove discrimination. Courts require solid evidence that gender (or another protected status) was the real reason for unfair treatment. Workers bringing discrimination claims should gather concrete documentation—emails, performance reviews, and witness statements—showing that the employer's stated reasons were false.
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.