Walker v. Department of Children & Families
2013 WL 6173993
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Walker, an African‑American male, was hired as a social worker trainee with a 10‑month working test period and was transferred in December 2004 to a unit supervised by Lisa Llanes that required court filings and court appearances.
- Supervisory expectations included organization, timely preparation of court documents for supervisory review, attendance at scheduled court proceedings, and time management; weekly supervision meetings occurred.
- During the working test period Walker missed multiple court appearances and filing deadlines (Feb. 22, Mar. 1, and a missed filing due Mar. 9/10), failed to timely prepare documents for supervisory review, and received formal notice about these deficiencies.
- Walker was terminated during his working test period for "less than satisfactory performance"; he exhausted internal remedies and sued under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act alleging race, color, and gender discrimination (disparate treatment and lack of assistance compared to white/female coworkers).
- At summary judgment the trial court found Walker established membership in a protected class and an adverse employment action, but failed to show he was qualified/satisfactorily performing and failed to show comparators were similarly situated or that the termination was motivated by discriminatory intent; summary judgment for the Department was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Walker's Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walker established prima facie qualification/performance | Walker argued he met job requirements and received some supervisory assistance | Dept. showed repeated missed court appearances/filings and notice of deficiencies during the trial period | Held: Walker failed to show he was qualified/satisfactorily performing |
| Whether termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (disparate treatment) | Walker identified alleged preferential treatment of white/female coworkers and exclusion from meetings | Dept. argued comparators were not similarly situated (different duties, discipline, or test‑period status) | Held: Walker failed to identify similarly situated comparators; no inference of discrimination |
| Whether Llanes’ remark to Walker was direct evidence of racial bias | Walker claimed Llanes said a white family wouldn’t take advice from a Black male — constituting direct evidence | Dept. argued the remark was about client interaction, not the termination reason, and lacked context or corroboration | Held: Single remark insufficient to raise triable issue of discriminatory intent |
| Whether Dept.’s stated nondiscriminatory reason (poor performance) was pretextual | Walker argued assistance was given to others and standards were applied unevenly | Dept. produced uncontradicted evidence of performance failures and that other employees requested help that Walker never sought | Held: Walker failed to rebut Dept.’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason or show pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in disparate‑treatment cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (plaintiff’s ultimate burden to prove intentional discrimination and proof of pretext)
- Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 266 Conn. 492 (2003) (elements of prima facie case under Connecticut law)
- Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard for "similarly situated" comparators)
- McGuinness v. Lincoln Hall, 263 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2001) (comparability requirement for comparator evidence)
- Paylan v. St. Mary’s Hosp. Corp., 118 Conn. App. 258 (2009) (summary judgment appropriate where no reasonable factfinder could find comparators similarly situated)
- Macellaio v. Newington Police Dept., 145 Conn. App. 426 (2013) (plenary review of trial court’s grant of summary judgment)