350 Conn. 182
Conn.2024Background
- Tenisha O’Reggio, a Black employee of the Connecticut Department of Labor, alleged that her immediate supervisor, Diane Krevolin, made repeated racially discriminatory remarks, creating a hostile work environment.
- O'Reggio filed internal complaints; investigations by Human Resources and an equal employment opportunity manager substantiated her claims, and Krevolin was suspended for one day and required to attend diversity training.
- O'Reggio’s requests to be reassigned or report to a different supervisor were denied, leading her to transfer to a different department; Krevolin later retired, and O'Reggio eventually returned to her former position.
- O'Reggio filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, which found the Department was not vicariously liable, as it acted promptly to address the situation.
- Both the trial court and the Appellate Court upheld this decision, applying the United States Supreme Court's definition of "supervisor" from Vance v. Ball State University, which requires authority to take tangible employment actions (like hiring, firing, or demotion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Vance definition of "supervisor" applies to state law hostile work environment claims | The Vance definition is too narrow and undermines the remedial purpose of state antidiscrimination law; "supervisor" should include those controlling daily work conditions | Vance definition is appropriate; state law should mirror federal Title VII standards for clarity and consistency | Vance definition adopted; only those with authority to make tangible employment decisions are supervisors |
| Whether Krevolin was a supervisor under the Vance standard | Krevolin had significant control over O’Regio’s day-to-day employment | Krevolin could not hire, fire, or discipline; only had limited administrative authority | Krevolin was not a supervisor under Vance; no vicarious liability |
| Whether the Department was vicariously liable for hostile work environment | O’Regio’s supervisor created a hostile environment, so liability should attach | Department responded promptly and reasonably; no vicarious liability without a supervisor as defined in Vance | No vicarious liability as Krevolin was not a supervisor under Vance |
| Whether agency negligence can lead to liability if harasser is not a supervisor | Employer should be liable for discriminatory environment regardless of technical job titles | Employer should only be liable for its own negligence if harasser is a coworker, not a supervisor | Liability only if employer is independently negligent; vicarious liability requires supervisor as defined in Vance |
Key Cases Cited
- Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (defines “supervisor” for Title VII claims as one empowered to take tangible employment actions)
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (framework for employer vicarious liability for supervisor harassment)
- Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (establishes vicarious liability and affirmative defenses for hostile work environment claims)
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (establishes that hostile work environment violates Title VII)