Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co.
304 Conn. 679
| Conn. | 2012Background
- Patino worked as a machinist for Birken from 1977 to 2004; harassment based on sexual orientation began in 1991 and continued for years.
- Harassment consisted of repeated derogatory slurs in Spanish, Italian, and English, often spoken near Patino while he worked.
- Patino repeatedly complained to supervisors; meetings were held and offenders were transferred, but harassment persisted.
- Birken’s responses included internal investigations and letters suggesting psychological evaluation of Patino; no effective remedy was provided.
- Patino filed five complaints with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, culminating in the current 46a-81c (1) claim; the jury awarded noneconomic damages of $94,500.
- The trial court denied motions to set aside remittitur and the defendant appeals on liability, sufficiency of evidence, and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 46a-81c (1) includes hostile work environment claims. | Patino argues § 46a-81c (1) covers hostile environment via terms, conditions or privileges of employment. | Birken contends no hostile environment claim is contemplated by the statute. | Statute includes hostile environment claims. |
| Whether evidence supports a hostile work environment finding. | Patino presented repeated, severe, derogatory slurs in his presence. | Birken asserts lack of direct targeting and language barriers undermines the claim. | Evidence supports a hostile environment; remarks were pervasive and directed at Patino or experienced in his environment. |
| Whether damages award of $94,500 is supported and not excessive. | Damages are warranted given duration and impact of harassment. | Award is excessive and not supported by the record. | Damages are supported and within permissible range; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the trial court misapplied Delgado in denying remittitur. | Court did not abuse discretion; Delgado supports substantial awards in serious discrimination cases. | ||
| Whether evidence timeframe affected liability scope. | Court considered the entire scope of the hostile environment, including acts within the statutory period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (hostile environment theory under Title VII)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (requires both objective and subjective hostility to support a hostile environment)
- Brittell v. Dept. of Correction, 247 Conn. 148 (Conn. 1998) (defines hostile work environment as pervasive discriminatory conduct altering terms and conditions)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (treats hostile environment with conduct directed at or affecting plaintiff's environment)
- Schanzer v. United Technologies Corp., 120 F. Supp. 2d 200 (D. Conn. 2000) (discusses evidentiary standards for emotional distress damages)