Hammond v. City of Bridgeport, 2012 WL 6115958

Plaintiff Hammond, employed by the City of Bridgeport, injured his right shoulder on December 10, 2007.
He received temporary total disability benefits and later continued light duty before surgery; the City terminated him on June 15, 2009 after a one-year leave policy and extensions.
The City calculated the twelve-month leave from the injury date, sent notices claiming resignation, and relied on the collective bargaining agreement’s leave provisions.
The commissioner applied Ford’s burden-shifting framework to evaluate whether the City discriminated against Hammond under § 31-290a (a).
The commissioner found Hammond established a prima facie case, rejected the City’s nondiscriminatory explanation as pretext, and determined the City’s actions violated § 31-290a.
Damages included reinstatement, back pay and benefits, and attorney’s fees; post-hearing motions addressed corrections, reopening, and new-trial requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City discriminated under § 31-290a	Hammond shows protected activity and adverse action with causal link.	Actions were neutral and based on leave policy, not retaliation.	Yes, discrimination established under Ford framework.
Whether the motion to reopen/open new evidence should be granted	New evidence could affect outcome; due diligence done.	New evidence not likely to change result; improper to reopen.	No abuse of discretion; motion denied.
Whether the motion to correct the finding and award should be granted	Corrections needed to reflect evidence and findings.	No material errors; corrections would not change outcome.	No abuse of discretion; corrections denied.
Whether damages were ordered beyond the scope of issues	Damages were intertwined with liability; properly awarded.	Damages discussed informally; should have been held for later.	Damages properly included within the proceedings.
Whether the commissioner properly interpreted the collective bargaining agreement	Agreement used as neutral evidence of standard policy.	Commissioner exceeded authority interpreting the agreement.	Neutral use of the agreement; no error in interpretation.

Ford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., 216 Conn. 40 (1990) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Mele v. Hartford, 270 Conn. 751 (2004) (standard for reviewing CBT discrimination findings; clearly erroneous)
Besade v. Interstate Security Services, 212 Conn. 441 (1989) (new-evidence/fairness criteria for opening a workers’ compensation award)
Meadow v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co., 134 Conn. 269 (1948) (test for whether new evidence justifies a new hearing)
Szudora v. Fairfield, 214 Conn. 552 (1990) (final-judgment analysis for appeals from compensation decisions)
Valdes v. Yankee Casting Co., 94 Conn. App. 140 (2006) (approval of commissioner’s findings on prima facie discrimination)