Failure to Accommodate Cases

The plaintiff state police trooper appealed from the trial court's judgment for the defendant R following the granting of R's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's complaint, which alleged that R had transferred the plaintiff from his job in a certain work unit in retaliation for having filed a report three years earlier about another officer's sexual harassment of a female officer. The plaintiff claimed that the court improperly concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether he had established a prima facie case of retaliation. Held: The trial court properly rendered summary judgment for R, as the plaintiff failed to establish a factual basis connecting R to the alleged retaliatory transfer, in that it was undisputed that R did not see the report until his deposition in this matter, that the plaintiff had not discussed the report with R or had any dealings at all with R, and the plaintiff's assertion that retaliatory animus on the part R could be inferred from an order that was given to another police unit to stop cooperating with the plaintiff's work unit was merely speculative, the plaintiff having presented no evidence that it was the defendant, rather than another supervisor, who gave the order or that the plaintiff was the target of the alleged retaliatory animus. Argued June 4—officially released September 2, 2025

The plaintiff, a former managerial employee of the Department of Revenue Services who was not included in any collective bargaining agreement, appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing her appeal from the decision of the defendant board, which found that the department's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment was not arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause pursuant to statute (§ 5-202 (c)). The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court failed to use the proper just cause standard applicable to permanent state employees. Held: The trial court properly upheld the department's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment utilizing a just cause standard pursuant to the applica- ble statute (§ 5-240) and regulation (§ 5-240-1a (c)), as the plaintiff's asser- tions that she was entitled to progressive discipline prior to the termination of her employment or to the application of the common-law seven step test to determine just cause conflicted with the statutory and regulatory definitions that the legislature has adopted for nonunion employees. The trial court did not make certain improper legal and factual findings that were not made by the defendant, as the court correctly determined that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the termination of the plaintiff's employment on the basis of her engagement in activities that were detrimental to the best interest of the department and that the defendant's finding of just cause was supported by substantial evidence. The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's administrative appeal, as there was substantial evidence in the record to support the defendant's factual findings and the termination of the plaintiff's employment from state service for just cause. Argued February 11—officially released August 26, 2025