172 Conn. App. 14
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Michael Jones, an African‑American gay man, was hired as a social worker (probationary) and received multiple counseling memos and an overall “unsatisfactory” performance rating before being terminated during his probationary period on October 22, 2008.
- Jones filed an internal discrimination complaint on October 3, 2008 alleging harassment based on sexual orientation; the department’s formal investigation concluded after his termination and found evidence that supervisor Valeriana DeBrito engaged in discriminatory behavior.
- The department’s human resources unit (including Michael Wood) made the termination decision after reviewing performance evaluations by DeBrito and Dana Goldberg; DeBrito and Goldberg did not make the termination decision themselves.
- An arbitrator later found evidence that two supervisors acted in a manner appearing discriminatory but found no clear nexus between that bias and the termination; the investigator issued a counseling memo to DeBrito.
- Jones sued under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act alleging discrimination (sexual orientation and race), retaliation, and hostile work environment; the trial court found for the department after applying both Price Waterhouse (mixed‑motive) and McDonnell Douglas (pretext) analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof / analytical standard | Court wrongly required Jones to both prove the employer’s reason false and that sexual orientation motivated termination (conflated Price Waterhouse and McDonnell Douglas analyses). | Court properly analyzed the claim under both recognized frameworks and did not impose an improper double burden. | Court rejected Jones: it applied McDonnell Douglas and Price Waterhouse separately and correctly. |
| Adverse inference for failure to call Lapadula | Court impermissibly drew adverse inference from Jones’s failure to call Lapadula as witness without proving availability. | No adverse inference was drawn; the court merely discounted uncorroborated hearsay when assessing credibility. | Court held no improper adverse inference; credibility weighing was proper. |
| Cat’s paw liability | DeBrito’s alleged bias tainted the decision; employer liable under cat’s paw theory. | Employer argued the termination followed an independent HR review based on objective performance issues, so cat’s paw does not apply. | Court held cat’s paw inapplicable because the termination resulted from an independent review and objective performance reasons. |
| Retaliation / causation | Termination was retaliatory and causation shown by proximity and other circumstantial evidence. | Department argued evidence (including Jones’s own October 3 statement) showed termination was already being considered, undermining causation. | Court found Jones failed to prove causation for retaliation; timing plus record evidence did not establish causal link. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (mixed‑motive framework: plaintiff shows impermissible factor motivated decision)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (pretext framework and burden‑shifting for disparate treatment claims)
- Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 236 Conn. 96 (1996) (Connecticut discussion of both Price Waterhouse and McDonnell Douglas analyses)
- Jacobs v. General Electric Co., 275 Conn. 395 (2005) (instruction that plaintiff should not be required to prove falsity of employer’s explanation in mixed analyses)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (cat’s paw theory principles; employer liability where biased subordinate intended and proximately caused adverse action)