192 Conn.App. 606
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background:
- Plaintiff Ulyses Alvarez, a Hispanic (Puerto Rican) probationary police officer for the City of Middletown, received a conditional offer in Nov. 2013, attended POST (Jan–Jun 2014), completed field training, and entered a one-year probationary period.
- Department records repeatedly documented performance deficiencies during field training and probation: poor situational awareness, organizational problems, deficient report writing, initial firearms failure, multiple training extensions (total ~624 hours), and several missed/unsatisfactory reports.
- In Feb. 2015 a civilian complaint alleged that Alvarez groped a female; an internal affairs investigation by Detective Ganley followed; Alvarez denied the allegation, was placed on administrative leave, and resigned on March 6, 2015 after receiving notice he would face probationary discharge.
- Alvarez alleged discriminatory remarks and treatment: Ganley allegedly said he was “too clean” for being Puerto Rican during background check; McKenna asked about “side bitches/baby mama drama” at a prehire interview; Alvarez also reported racial slurs at POST. He claimed other officers with similar performance were not disciplined but produced no comparative evidence.
- The City submitted uncontroverted documentary proof of performance problems and evidence it had discharged a Caucasian probationary officer for similar documentation/performance failures. Alvarez sued under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (race and national origin). The trial court granted summary judgment for the City; the appellate court affirmed, holding Alvarez failed to show pretext.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circumstances surrounding the discharge give rise to an inference of discrimination | Alvarez: hiring/interview remarks, hostile POST environment, internal affairs complaint and alleged inconsistent discipline create an inference | City: remarks were not race-specific, plaintiff offered no admissible comparator or proof of disparate discipline | Trial court found no such inference; appellate court affirmed on pretext ground and declined to resolve the inference issue further |
| Whether the City's stated nondiscriminatory reason (poor performance) was a pretext for race/national-origin discrimination | Alvarez: employer's documentation was untrue/contrived; same-actor inference is undermined by later discharge; internal affairs report and alleged comments show bias | City: produced detailed, contemporaneous documentation of deficiencies; no admissible evidence linking decision to discriminatory animus; internal affairs report did not inform the chief before recommendation; offered a similar‑situation discharge of a Caucasian officer | Court held Alvarez failed to raise a genuine issue that the performance-based reason was pretext; summary judgment for City affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucenti v. Laviero, 327 Conn. 764 (summary judgment standard; review is plenary and movant must show absence of genuine issue)
- Craine v. Trinity College, 259 Conn. 625 (articulating McDonnell Douglas pretext framework in Connecticut)
- Taing v. CAMRAC, LLC, 189 Conn. App. 23 (plaintiff must produce admissible evidence allowing a rational factfinder to infer discrimination to defeat summary judgment)
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (a plaintiff must show the employer’s proffered reason is false and that discrimination was the real reason)
- Carlton v. Mystic Transportation, Inc., 202 F.3d 129 (same‑actor inference—hiring and firing by same decisionmaker undermines inference of discriminatory intent)
- Grady v. Affiliated Central, Inc., 130 F.3d 553 (same‑actor inference stronger when firing occurs shortly after hiring)