185 Conn. App. 559
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Ismael Agosto, a pastor, was hired by Premier Maintenance as a cleaner/porter at apartments managed by WinnResidential; his crew supervisor was Luis Martinez, the church chaplain.
- Complaints arose that Agosto spent excessive time talking with tenants about religion, received easier assignments, and took extra breaks; WinnResidential staff (Hagan, Alejandro, Deming) reported these concerns to Premier.
- Premier’s supervisor, Sandino Cifuentes, warned Martinez and issued a written warning to Agosto directing him to limit tenant interactions; Agosto refused to sign the warning.
- WinnResidential requested removal of Agosto and Martinez; Premier terminated both after hiring replacements. Agosto later stated on an unemployment form he was discharged for talking too much to residents.
- Agosto sued Premier under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 alleging religious discrimination, retaliatory discharge, and aiding-and-abetting; the trial court granted Premier summary judgment and Agosto appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which burden-shifting framework applies (pretext McDonnell Douglas/Burdine vs mixed-motive Price Waterhouse)? | Agosto argued mixed-motive should apply. | Premier argued Agosto claimed pretext only, so McDonnell Douglas/Burdine applies. | McDonnell Douglas/Burdine applies; Agosto did not allege mixed legitimate/illegitimate motives. |
| Whether Agosto made a prima facie showing of disparate-treatment religious discrimination (inference of discrimination)? | Warning about religious terms and evidence that he was a pastor supports an inference of religious motive. | Evidence shows nonreligious, nondiscriminatory reasons: policy limiting tenant interaction, customer complaints, preferential treatment by supervisor, and no derogatory religious remarks by decisionmaker. | No genuine issue: Agosto failed to show circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether Agosto engaged in protected activity for retaliation claim under § 46a-60(a)(4)? | Continued use of religious terms and refusal to sign the warning constituted informal protest (protected activity). | Such conduct was not a protest opposing unlawful discrimination; Agosto did not record objections on the warning form and admitted he was warned for excessive talking. | No protected activity shown; summary judgment proper on retaliation claim. |
| Aiding-and-abetting claim viability | Premised on underlying discrimination/retaliation by Premier’s agents. | Fails because no underlying discrimination/retaliation proven; employer cannot aid-and-abet itself. | Claim fails as predicate claims fail; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (pretext burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (clarifies employer’s production burden in McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (mixed-motive framework where illegitimate and legitimate reasons both motivate decision)
- Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29 (factors relevant to inferring discriminatory intent)
- Tomassi v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., 478 F.3d 111 (remarks by nondecisionmakers have limited probative value on motive)
- Feliciano v. AutoZone, Inc., 316 Conn. 65 (Connecticut standards for employment discrimination analysis)
- Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 236 Conn. 96 (discussion of disparate-treatment models under Connecticut law)