HASAN SAMAKAAB v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
File No. CV-15-6056335S
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
March 10, 2016
SCHOLL, J.
APPENDIX
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
**********************************************************
Proceedings
Memorandum of decision on defendant‘s motion for summary judgment. Motion granted.
Katrena Engstrom, for the plaintiff.
Carolynn Ennis, assistant attorney general, for the defendant.
Opinion
INTRODUCTION
This an action by the plaintiff, Hasan Samakaab, pursuant to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act,
The defendant has moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff‘s claims because he cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation and, in any event, the decision not to promote him was made for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reason. In support of its position, the defendant submitted portions of the plaintiff‘s deposition; exhibits to the deposition, which included: the plaintiff‘s affidavit of illegal discrimination provided to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the job description for eligibility supervisor, a letter to the commissioner of DSS signed by the plaintiff as well as others; the affidavit of Astread Ferron-Poole, the director of administration for DSS; and the affidavit of Lisa Wells, social services operations manager for DSS. The plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment as well as his affidavit; his deposition; the letter to the commissioner also submitted by the defendant; his responses to interrogatories; and letters and memos of recommendation and appreciation.
DISCUSSION
“Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . Although the party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any material fact [however] a party opposing summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue. . . . It is not enough . . . for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue. . . . Mere assertions of fact, whether contained in a complaint or in a brief, are insufficient to establish the existence of a material fact and, therefore, cannot refute evidence properly presented to the court [in support of a motion for summary judgment]. . . . As a general rule, then, [when a motion for summary judgment is
“The framework for the burden of production of evidence and the burden of persuasion in an employment discrimination case is well established. [McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973)] and subsequent decisions have established an allocation of the burden of production and an order of presentation of proof . . . in discriminatory-treatment cases. . . . First, the [complainant] must establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
The defendant argues that the plaintiff‘s claims of discrimination fail because his allegations do not support a prima facie case of discrimination. “To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the employment context, the plaintiff must present evidence that: (1) [he] belongs to a protected class; (2) [he] was subject to an adverse employment action; and (3) the adverse action took place under circumstances permitting an inference of discrimination. . . . To establish the third prong, a litigant may present circumstantial evidence from which an inference may be drawn that similarly situated individuals were treated more favorably than
The plaintiff principally relies on his own affidavit and deposition in support of his claims. The court agrees with the defendant that they contain mostly self-serving and unsupported claims. “The party opposing a motion for summary judgment must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue . . . . The movant has the burden of showing the nonexistence of such issues but the evidence thus presented, if otherwise sufficient, is not rebutted by the bald statement that an issue of fact does exist. . . . To oppose a motion for summary judgment successfully, the nonmovant must recite specific facts . . . which contradict those stated in the movant‘s affidavits and documents. . . . The opposing party to a motion for summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue. . . . The existence of the genuine issue of material fact must be demonstrated by counteraffidavits and concrete evidence.” (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gianetti v. Health Net of Connecticut, Inc., 116 Conn. App. 459, 464-65, 976 A.2d 23 (2009). “Although the court must view the inferences to be drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion . . . a party may not rely on mere speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts to overcome a motion for summary judgment. . . . A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuccio Development, Inc. v. Neumann, 111 Conn. App. 588, 594, 960 A.2d 1071 (2008).
Even considering the plaintiff‘s evidence, it does not support a finding that an issue of fact exists as to the validity of his claims. The plaintiff alleges that a number of females, as well as one male, were promoted instead of him. Some he claims were younger than he was. Most he claims were promoted because of their personal relationship with management, not as a result of discrimination. The defendant argues that the employees
The defendant also claims that the plaintiff‘s discrimination claims fail because DSS had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting him. The court agrees. The plaintiff was rated unacceptable overall following his interview for the eligibility supervisor position and therefore not eligible to be considered for the position. The plaintiff also has not demonstrated that DSS’ reasons for not promoting him were pretextual. Although the plaintiff claims that the interviewer, Wells, was hostile to him, the other interviewer rated him unacceptable as well. The plaintiff has submitted no evidence that would indicate that the ratings were unsupported or based on discriminatory motives. Although the plaintiff claims that he was not a half hour late, as the interviewers noted, or rambled, as they also noted, the evidence submitted does not raise into the question the validity of the other conclusions reached by the interviewers. They noted that he “did not provide clear examples to resolve staff difficulties,” “he did not come prepared for interview, responses were long and drawn out but lacked substance,” and “displays neediness for additional support in making decisions.” Both interviewers concluded that they “could not determine supervisory or leadership qualities based on responses.” Interviewers of the plaintiff for promotion in 2012 also noted that his supervisory ability was not evident. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to provide evidence which would indicate that there is an issue of fact as to whether he was the subject of discrimination in the denial of promotion.
The defendant also claims that the plaintiff cannot establish a claim of retaliation. The court agrees. “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must show (1) the employee was engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer was aware of that activity; (3) the employee suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Darden v. Stratford, 420 F. Supp. 2d 36, 45 (D. Conn. 2006).
CONCLUSION
The motion for summary judgment is granted.