211 Conn.App. 676
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Rossova was hired March 4, 2013 as a senior manager in a two-person brand and creative strategy department; a ninety-day probationary policy applied.
- On March 29, 2013 she disclosed her pregnancy to her supervisor, Jennifer Smith; HR was notified and said no work-from-home for liability reasons.
- After disclosure, Rossova alleges a rapid deterioration in Smith’s treatment: curt demeanor, micromanagement, new criticisms, and the commencement of written documentation of performance issues.
- Fewer than five weeks after the disclosure Smith terminated Rossova for poor performance; Rossova filed a CHRO complaint and then a FEPA suit alleging pregnancy discrimination.
- A jury found for Rossova on liability (Dec. 2016); the trial court denied defendant’s JNOV motion, awarded economic damages (approximately $315,188), interest, and attorney’s fees; the defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination | Rossova: abrupt change in supervisor's attitude and conduct after pregnancy disclosure, close temporal proximity, no prior complaints | Charter: evidence insufficient; contemporaneous documentary evidence and an email show preexisting performance problems; temporal proximity alone is not enough | Court: Sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to infer discrimination from the sequence of events and changed workplace conditions; prima facie established |
| Whether the employer's stated reason (poor performance) was pretextual | Rossova: documentation of poor performance began only after disclosure; specific performance complaints contradicted by testimony | Charter: presented documentary chart and emails showing errors (e.g., wrong hyperlink) and probationary concerns | Court: Jury reasonably could find the employer's explanation unworthy of credence and infer intentional discrimination; pretext proven for purposes of the verdict |
| Whether Rossova needed additional evidence beyond prima facie proof and rejection of employer's reason (interpretation of Craine/Perez-Dickson) | Rossova: not required; under Reeves a plaintiff may rely on prima facie evidence plus evidence disproving employer's explanation | Charter: Craine and Perez-Dickson require additional proof beyond prima facie in some cases | Court: Those cases do not impose a blanket additional-evidence rule; Reeves controls—prima facie plus rejection of nondiscriminatory reason can permit an inference of intentional discrimination |
| Whether the trial court erred in its mitigation/back-pay calculation | Rossova: she credibly sought work (recruiters, networking), lack of documentary proof came from voluminous emails and record-keeping gaps | Charter: plaintiff failed to mitigate for many months and produced no documents for those months; court should disallow all months without proof | Held: Trial court's factual finding that Rossova failed to mitigate for 17 of 52 months was not clearly erroneous; awarding back pay for months lacking complete documentary proof was within the court's fact-finding discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (prima facie case plus sufficient evidence to disbelieve employer's reason can permit inference of intentional discrimination)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (presumption created by prima facie case drops once employer articulates nondiscriminatory reason)
- Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (clarifies burdens in McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Craine v. Trinity College, 259 Conn. 625 (2002) (Connecticut discussion of reliance on prima facie proof and rejection of employer justification)
- Perez-Dickson v. Bridgeport, 304 Conn. 483 (2012) (Connecticut precedent addressing evidentiary sufficiency in discrimination cases)
- Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1994) (examples of circumstances permitting an inference of discrimination)
- Board of Educ. v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 266 Conn. 492 (2003) (direct evidence of discrimination is rare; McDonnell Douglas framework guidance)