Discrimination Cases

The plaintiff employee appealed from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment. The trial court had upheld the decision of the named defendant, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, which determined that the defendant employer was not vicari- ously liable for the creation of a hostile work environment by another employee, K, in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.). The plaintiff claimed that the Appellate Court incorrectly had applied the definition of the term ''supervisor,'' adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University (570 U.S. 421), in concluding that the employer could not be held vicariously liable because K, the individual to whom the plaintiff reported and who allegedly made racially discriminatory comments to the plaintiff and in her presence, was not a supervisor under the definition of that term adopted in Vance. Held: The Appellate Court correctly applied to the plaintiff's hostile work environ- ment claim the definition of the term ''supervisor'' adopted in Vance, which is limited to employees who are empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim of the alleged discrimination. Because there was no evidence in the record that K had the authority to take tangible employment actions against the plaintiff, the employer could not be held vicariously liable for K's creation of a hostile work environment. (Three justices dissenting in one opinion) Argued March 20—officially released August 1, 2024