The court affirmed the trial court's decision to strike the plaintiff's complaint, finding that her age discrimination complaint to the CHRO was untimely under the 180-day statute of limitations because the most recent alleged discriminatory conduct occurred in May 2018, well before her December 2019 filing.
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant school district for her alleged constructive discharge from employment as a teacher. The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant for approximately twenty-four years when she resigned from her position in August, 2019. On December 19, 2019, she filed an age discrimination complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). There- after, the CHRO issued a release of jurisdiction over the complaint, and the plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendant, alleging a violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.), constructive discharge, and breach of contract. The plaintiff, who was seventy years old, claimed that she was forced to resign after the defendant created an intolerable work environment by marginalizing and unfairly criticizing her because it wanted to replace her with a younger teacher. The defendant filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that it was untimely and failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, and, thereafter, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging only constructive discharge. In that complaint, the plaintiff added allegations related to a report issued by the defendant on June 10, 2019, in which it acknowledged that an assistant principal had copied certain portions of the plaintiff's prior evaluations into her 2016–2017 school year evaluation and recommended a review of adminis- trators' practices of referencing evaluations from prior years. The defen- dant filed a motion to strike, which the trial court granted, finding that the plaintiff's complaint to the CHRO was untimely pursuant to the 180 day limitation period set forth in the applicable statute ((Rev. to 2019) § 46a-82 (f)), because the plaintiff had failed to identify conduct relating to an intolerable working environment that had persisted to June 22, 2019, o
Twerdahl v. Wilton Public Schools Summary
What Happened
A teacher who worked for Wilton Public Schools for 24 years resigned in August 2019. She believed she was forced out because of her age and filed a discrimination complaint with the state in December 2019. She also claimed the school district breached its contract with her.
What the Court Decided
The court ruled against the teacher. The judge found that her complaint was filed too late. Under state law, workers must file age discrimination complaints within 180 days of the discriminatory action. Since the school district's most recent alleged wrongful conduct happened in May 2018, and she didn't file until December 2019—nearly 19 months later—the complaint exceeded the deadline. The court dismissed her case without hearing the merits.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case highlights the critical importance of deadlines in discrimination claims. Workers who believe they've faced discrimination based on age must act quickly and file complaints within the required timeframe, or they lose their right to pursue the claim entirely. Missing this deadline, regardless of how strong your case might be, can prevent you from getting relief.
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.