Samakaab v. Dept. of Social Services
173 A.3d 1004
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Hasan Samakaab, an employee of Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS), sued under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act claiming denial of promotion on Dec. 1, 2013 for reasons including age, sex, Somalian descent, and prior opposition to unlawful employment practices.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment, submitting interview evaluations, affidavits (including DSS administrators), the plaintiff’s deposition and affidavit, and related documents; plaintiff opposed with his affidavit, deposition, recommendation letters, and the letter to the commissioner.
- At the promotion interview for eligibility services supervisor the plaintiff received overall "unacceptable" ratings from interviewers and was not eligible for promotion.
- Plaintiff identified other employees (mostly female, some younger) promoted instead of him and alleged favoritism/relationships with management as the real reasons for his non-promotion.
- Plaintiff relied on a letter to the DSS commissioner (criticizing management and urging replacement) as the protected activity giving rise to a retaliation claim.
- The trial court found plaintiff’s evidence largely self-serving and insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to discrimination or retaliation and granted summary judgment for DSS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved a prima facie discrimination claim under §46a-60 | Samakaab said he belonged to protected classes and was denied promotion; pointed to other employees promoted instead | DSS argued plaintiff failed to show similarly situated comparators or circumstances giving rise to inference of discrimination | Court: No prima facie showing; comparators not similarly situated and evidence insufficient |
| Whether DSS offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting plaintiff | Plaintiff argued interview ratings reflected bias and were pretextual | DSS produced interviewer evaluations showing unacceptable performance in interview and lack of supervisory/leadership evidence | Court: DSS met production burden; plaintiff failed to show pretext |
| Whether plaintiff established retaliation for opposing discrimination | Plaintiff relied on a letter to the commissioner criticizing management as protected activity | DSS argued the letter complained about management practices, not discriminatory conduct | Court: Letter did not constitute opposition to discriminatory practices; retaliation claim failed |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given the record | Plaintiff argued factual disputes exist (hostility in interview, comparator promotions) | DSS argued evidence was uncontradicted and plaintiff’s assertions were speculative/self-serving | Court: Summary judgment granted for DSS; no genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (established burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Squeo v. Norwalk Hospital Assn., 316 Conn. 558 (summary judgment burdens and nonmovant obligations)
- Jacobs v. General Electric Co., 275 Conn. 395 (prima facie elements and proving pretext in employment discrimination)
- Perez-Dickson v. Bridgeport, 304 Conn. 483 (comparator/similarly situated requirement for inference of discrimination)
- Ruiz v. County of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486 (comparator analysis requires reasonably close resemblance of facts)