138 Conn. App. 141
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Peterson, a transgender woman, sues Hartford for sex and disability discrimination in selecting patrol K-9 handlers and later retaliation.
- Canine-handler selection involved department tests (Brooks) and academy testing; Brooks used an interdepartmental approach and manipulated timing to fill slots.
- Peterson failed the department’s January 2003 300-meter run under a single Cooper Standards norm, prompting grievance and later August/September 2003 testing.
- Referee found mixed findings on discrimination and pretext; court remanded for clarification in 2010, and the remands were challenged.
- Trial court ultimately reversed the referee on several grounds; the appellate court held remand decisions improper and reversed, directing dismissal and enforcement of the referee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand jurisdiction and final judgment by the court | Remand orders were final judgments terminating jurisdiction. | Remands were not final judgments and court retained jurisdiction. | Remand not a final judgment; court properly denied dismissal. |
| Pretext analysis adequacy | Referee inadequately discussed pretext and evidence of discrimination. | Evidence supported no pretext; referee properly concluded. | Remand on pretext improper; referee’s pretext findings supported by substantial evidence. |
| Physical disability claim remand | Disability analysis could be pursued without Conway limitation. | Court correctly remanded to consider physical disability. | Remand on physical disability improper; outcome unchanged regardless of disability finding. |
| Gender stereotyping claim remand | Remand necessary to clarify gender stereotyping theory. | Referee considered claim; remand unnecessary. | Remand on gender stereotyping unnecessary; no separate reliance for outcome. |
| Retaliation relation back | Amendment relates back to August 2003 filing; January–February 2003 acts viable. | Relation back does not apply; retaliation claim time-barred for earlier acts. | Relation back doctrine did not apply; January–February 2003 retaliation not timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hogan v. Dept. of Children & Families, 290 Conn. 545 (2009) (remand order can be characterized as a remand under § 4-183)
- Vincent v. New Haven, 285 Conn. 778 (2008) (remand and articulation considerations in § 4-183 context)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (gender stereotyping theory under Title VII)
- Sullivan v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 285 Conn. 208 (2008) (McDonnell Douglas pretext framework and mixed motives discussion)
- Wright v. Teamsters Local 559, 123 Conn. App. 1 (2010) (relation back analysis; pleading amendments)
- Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 266 Conn. 492 (2003) (standard for agency review under § 4-183)
- Sgritta v. Commissioner of Public Health, 133 Conn. App. 710 (2012) (scope of review under 4-183; substantial rights standard)