185 Conn. App. 425
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Martinez worked for Premier Maintenance as a cleaner/porter and was promoted to acting supervisor; he was also a chaplain at his church and recommended his pastor, Agosto, for hire.
- Supervisor Cifuentes warned Martinez that he could not treat Agosto specially or call him "pastor" at work; after Agosto was hired, crew members complained that Martinez assigned Agosto easier tasks and allowed extra breaks and resident interactions.
- WinnResidential (the client) reported concerns that Martinez and Agosto had misused confidential tenant information and that Martinez disparaged management; client managers asked Premier to remove both employees.
- Premier issued written warnings to both employees, and on August 3, 2012 Cifuentes terminated Agosto and then Martinez after Martinez referred to Agosto as "pastor" during the meeting.
- Martinez sued under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 alleging religious discrimination, retaliation, and aiding-and-abetting; the trial court granted Premier summary judgment, finding no prima facie discrimination or protected activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper burden model for discrimination (pretext v. mixed-motive) | Martinez argued Price Waterhouse mixed-motive analysis should apply. | Premier argued Martinez alleged a single illegitimate reason (pretext), so McDonnell Douglas/Burdine pretext model applies. | Court: McDonnell Douglas/Burdine applies because Martinez did not allege both legitimate and illegitimate reasons. |
| Prima facie disparate-treatment discrimination | Martinez argued circumstances (timing, remark at firing, client hostility) allow inference of religious animus. | Premier presented nondiscriminatory reasons: preferential treatment of Agosto, misuse of confidential info, client request to remove employees. | Court: No genuine issue of material fact; record lacks evidence of employer religious bias; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Retaliation (§ 46a-60(a)(4)) — whether calling coworker "pastor" was protected activity | Martinez argued his calling Agosto "pastor" after being told not to was an informal protest/opposition to discrimination. | Premier argued the act was not a protest of discrimination and Martinez made no formal or informal complaint. | Court: Not protected activity; Martinez did not allege or substantiate a protest; summary judgment proper. |
| Aiding-and-abetting claim | Martinez alleged Premier allowed supervisors/employees to discriminate against him. | Premier argued claim fails because plaintiff cannot show employer discriminated, and an employer cannot aid-and-abet itself. | Court: Plaintiff abandoned this argument on appeal; trial court correctly granted summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (pretext burden-shifting framework)
- Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (clarifying McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (mixed-motive analysis when both legitimate and illegitimate reasons motivate decision)
- Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 236 Conn. 96 (Conn. discussion of pretext vs. mixed-motive models)
- Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29 (circumstances that support inference of discriminatory intent)
- Feliciano v. Autozone, Inc., 316 Conn. 65 (standards for discrimination claims and summary judgment review)
- Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83 (same-actor inference)
- Tomassi v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., 478 F.3d 111 (weight of remarks by non-decisionmakers)