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

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION – RETALIATORY DISCHARGE – SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to defendant former employer on plaintiff former employee's disability-discrimination claim because the deposition transcripts and plaintiff former employee's medical and personnel records created genuine issues of material fact as to whether 1.) plaintiff former employee's physical and mental impairments substantially limited his major life activities, and 2.) whether defendant former employer provided reasonable accommodations. The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to defendant former employer on plaintiff former employee's retaliation claim because the evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact and showed that defendant former employer terminated plaintiff former employee because of violation of attendance and respect policies, which were legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for that termination.