Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 247
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Schwartz, a former university attending veterinarian, alleged retaliation by Eagen, the university employee, after whistle-blowing activities.
- Eagen, as labor and employment specialist, was involved in disciplinary matters and supervised Schwartz's post-termination handling of personal belongings.
- Schwartz was placed on paid leave and then terminated in 2008 amid concerns about his work performance and conduct.
- After termination, Schwartz did not receive all personal belongings promptly; several items were delayed or not returned.
- Schwartz filed a whistle-blower retaliation complaint under § 4-61dd; the referee found retaliatory action by Eagen in withholding/delaying items.
- The trial court affirmed the referee’s decision; Eagen appealed to the Superior Court, which dismissed the appeal for lack of substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'personnel action' equals 'employment action' for § 4-61dd | Eagen argues 'personnel action' is narrower than 'employment action'. | Schwartz contends they are interchangeable and McDonnell Douglas framework applies. | Term encompasses employment action; proper framework applied. |
| Whether there was substantial evidence of retaliation | Eagen claims delays were not retaliatory; evidence insufficient. | Delays and missing items shown through credibility findings support retaliation. | There was substantial evidence of retaliatory action. |
| Whether the court may reconsider alleged errors of fact by the referee | Court should review factual errors by referee. | Court cannot retry facts; substantial evidence supports referee. | Court affirmed; no retry of facts allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court 2006) (retaliation actions need only be materially adverse to dissuade whistle-blowers)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (Supreme Court 1997) (post-employment retaliation against applicants/ employees under Title VII)
- Ford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., 216 Conn. 40 (Conn. 1990) (adopts McDonnell Douglas framework for state discrimination claims)
- Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn. App. 501 (Conn. App. 2003) (application of McDonnell Douglas framework to whistle-blower retaliation)