187 Conn. App. 422
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Boucher worked for Saint Francis GI Endoscopy; she alleged repeated sexual harassment by coworker Jason Crespo, including groping in a utility closet in Aug. 2013, and reported it to supervisor Kathleen Hull on Jan. 10, 2014.
- Hull investigated: exchanged texts with Boucher over the weekend, interviewed a coworker (DiPinto), then met Boucher on Jan. 13 and said Boucher’s story “did not add up,” asked her to recount events, and said she would give Boucher a warning (no warning was issued).
- During the Jan. 13 meeting Boucher told Hull she was quitting; Hull tried to stop her, Boucher walked out and filed a police report against Hull (no arrest).
- Boucher sued under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act alleging gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment; she opposed summary judgment only on the retaliation count.
- The trial court granted defendant’s summary judgment; on appeal the court affirmed, holding Boucher failed to raise a genuine issue that an adverse employment action occurred (no constructive discharge; Hull’s conduct not materially adverse).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boucher was constructively discharged | Boucher contends Hull’s response and the workplace atmosphere forced her to quit involuntarily | Defendant argues no intolerable conditions were created and Hull tried to stop her from quitting | Court held no constructive discharge: no evidence employer intentionally created intolerable conditions or had notice earlier; plaintiff quit before employer could remedy |
| Whether Hull’s conduct during investigation was a materially adverse employment action | Boucher argues Hull’s demeanor, suggestion of a warning, and demanding recount were retaliatory and would deter reasonable employees from complaining | Defendant argues those actions were investigatory or minor and did not change employment terms | Court held Hull’s conduct, including an unissued warning threat and investigatory questioning, was not materially adverse and insufficient for retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbee v. Sysco Connecticut, LLC, 156 Conn. App. 813 (Conn. App. 2015) (summary judgment standards and burdens)
- Brittell v. Dept. of Correction, 247 Conn. 148 (Conn. 1998) (standard for constructive discharge)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (objective standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation adverse-action standard excludes petty workplace slights)
- Chertkova v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1996) (example where pattern of conduct supported constructive discharge)
- Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 663 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2011) (threats not carried out can be empty and not materially adverse)