Discrimination Cases

Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees on appellant's age discrimination claim.

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for the alleged wrongful termination of his employment in violation of the statute (§ 31- 290a) prohibiting discrimination against employees exercising their rights under the Workers' Compensation Act (§ 31-275 et seq.). The plaintiff had worked for the defendant since 2002, and, every year, received a seasonal layoff notice with recall. In October, 2016, the plain- tiff sustained a work injury, received medical treatment, and filed a workers' compensation claim. Approximately one month after the plain- tiff filed his claim, he received a seasonal layoff notice without recall, terminating his employment. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff in violation of § 31-290a. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff did not meet his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the burden shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792), the plaintiff having presented evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action: the plaintiff presented evidence that he sustained a work injury, reported his injury to the defendant, received medical treatment for his injury, filed a workers' compensation claim arising out of his work injury, and, thereafter, approximately two weeks before he received his seasonal layoff notice without recall, the defendant made the decision to terminate his employ- ment, which showed a sufficiently close temporal connection between the exercise of his rights protected under the act and the defendant's adverse action against him; moreover, the plaintiff produced

The plaintiff sought to recover damages for gender discrimination and retal- iatory discharge in violation of statute (§ 46a-51 et seq.) as a result of the termination of her employment by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant paid her less than it paid two male employees, whose job responsibilities she recognized were different from her own. After the defendant began to experience financial difficulties, the plain- tiff was laid off, and her duties were absorbed by other employees, including one of the two male employees she claimed had been paid more than her. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and because the court thoroughly analyzed the legal issues in concluding that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, this court adopted the trial court's comprehensive and well reasoned decision as a proper statement and analysis of the applicable law on the issues presented. Argued February 8—officially released April 6, 2021