64 F. Supp. 3d 285
D. Conn.2014Background
- Fasoli, a 66-year-old City of Stamford employee in Operations, alleges retaliation for protected speech and ages-related discrimination.
- Orgera became Director of Operations in Dec 2009, with no supervisory over Fasoli until then; Scacco supervised Fasoli prior to 2010.
- Fasoli's asserted protected speech includes whistleblowing about harassment, mismanagement, and theft within Operations from 2008–2011.
- Fasoli was moved from Vehicle Maintenance to Scofieldtown Yard in Jan 2010, then returned to Vehicle Maintenance in Oct 2010; he alleges this and related actions were retaliatory.
- Scacco and Orgera allegedly retaliated by disciplinary actions, harassment, and creating adverse personnel records; a separate Metals Audit and subsequent rumors allegedly followed Fasoli’s whistleblowing.
- Fasoli asserts multiple adverse actions (time off, suspensions, etc.) and claims a pattern of harassment intended to deter him from testifying or speaking out.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fasoli shows a prima facie retaliation case. | Fasoli argues protected speech led to adverse actions. | Defendants contend no causal link or prima facie case; many actions lack proximity or knowledge. | Generally no prima facie case; most actions lack causal connection. |
| Whether the actions constitute adverse employment actions. | Actions like suspensions, transfers, and pay reductions are adverse. | Many actions are not truly adverse or causally linked to speech; some lacked authority or propriety. | Most actions not legally adverse or temporally proximate to protected speech. |
| Whether the § 1983 conspiracy claim survives under intra-corporate doctrine. | Alleges a city-wide conspiracy among officials. | Intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine bars claims among city employees. | Conspiracy claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Whether the ADEA retaliation claim is viable under but-for causation. | Retaliation for age discrimination claim affected his environment. | Plaintiff did not show but-for causation; CHRO filing not sole cause. | ADEA retaliation claim dismissed for lack of but-for causation. |
| Whether the age discrimination and CFEPA claims survive. | Fasoli claims age-based mistreatment. | Insufficient evidence of adverse action or but-for causation; barriers in showing qualification and supervisors’ actions. | Age discrimination and CFEPA claims fail under but-for standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. County of Rockland, 373 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2004) (establishes elements for First Amendment retaliation in public employment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (retaliation claims analyzed under McDonnell Douglas; but-for standard in some contexts)
- Matusick v. Erie Cnty. Water Auth., 757 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2014) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to proceeding; but-for considerations clarified)
- Lopez v. Burris Logistics Co., 952 F.Supp.2d 396 (D. Conn. 2013) (requires showing protected rights and no substantial interference with job performance for state retaliation claims)
- Ritz v. Town of East Hartford, 110 F.Supp.2d 94 (D. Conn. 2000) (Whistleblower protection act elements for retaliation claims)
- Da Ros v. Murray, 777 F.Supp.2d 340 (D. Conn. 2011) (temporal proximity and causation considerations in retaliation claims)