149 Conn. App. 774
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff Anne M. Amato, age 1948, long-time employee of The Hearst Corporation, sues for age discrimination under Connecticut's FEPA § 46a-60.
- She was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan on October 7, 2011, with a termination date of December 7, 2011.
- Between Oct 7 and Dec 31, 2011, older colleagues with similar records faced threats of termination; plaintiff alleges a pattern to remove older workers.
- After filing a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities on December 1, 2011, the defendant stopped or suspended actions against older employees.
- Plaintiff filed suit September 7, 2012; defendant moved to strike on November 8, 2012; trial court granted the motion May 8, 2013, finding no adverse employment action from the PIP.
- Appeal followed; the appellate court affirmed, applying federal precedent as persuasive guidance in interpreting the Connecticut act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CT court was bound by federal precedent interpreting the act | Amato claims the court was not bound by federal precedent. | Hearst contends Connecticut may follow federal guidance for interpretation. | CT court properly followed federal precedent as persuasive guidance. |
| Whether the complaint states a prima facie age-discrimination claim | Amato alleges PIP placement, a specific termination date, pattern against older workers, and distress injuries state discrimination. | Plaintiff failed to allege adverse employment action; PIP alone is not an adverse action absent other changes. | Complaint fails to plead an adverse employment action; no prima facie case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co., 304 Conn. 679 (2012) (CT antidiscrimination statutes interpreted in light of federal law)
- Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 135 Conn. App. 563 (2012) (federal precedent guidance used in interpretation)
- Vollemans v. Wallingford, 103 Conn. App. 188 (2007) (adverse action framework in CT implied by federal standards)
- Reynolds v. Dept. of the Army, 439 F. App’x 150 (3d Cir. 2011) (PIP alone not adverse action absent changes to pay/status)
- Brown v. American Golf Corp., 99 F. App’x 341 (2d Cir. 2004) (adverse action requires more than a procedural change)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (disparate-treatment framework for establishing discrimination)
- Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 236 Conn. 96 (1996) (statutory interpretation parallels federal framework)
- State v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 211 Conn. 464 (1989) (statutes interpreted with consideration of federal law guidance)