Sex/Gender Discrimination in Connecticut

What Is Sex/Gender Discrimination ?

Background

Sex and gender discrimination claims under CFEPA are evaluated under the familiar burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). (See, e.g., Kaytor v. Elec. Boat Corp. (2010) 609 F.3d 537, 556 [2d Cir.]; Craine v. Trinity Coll. (2002) 259 Conn. 625, 636-37 & 637 n.6.)

Statutory Sources for Discrimination Claims

“General Statutes Section 46a–60 (a) provides in relevant part:

‘It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section ... (1) [f]or an employer, by the employer or the employer's agent, except in the case of a bona fide occupational qualification or need, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment any individual ... because of the individual's race, color, religious creed, age, sex, gender identity or expression, marital status, national origin, ancestry, present or past history of mental disability, intellectual disability, learning disability or physical disability ....’”

(Phadnis v. Great Expression Dental Ctrs. of Conn., P.C. (2017) 170 Conn. App. 79, 85 General Statutes Section 46a–60 (a).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Prima Facie Case for Employment Discrimination

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the employee must first make a prima facie case of discrimination.... In order for the employee to first make a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must show:

the plaintiff is a member of a protected class;
the plaintiff was qualified for the position;
the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; and
the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination....”

“The employer may then rebut the prima facie case by stating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification for the employment decision in question.... The employee then must demonstrate that the reason proffered by the employer is merely a pretext and that the decision actually was motivated by illegal discriminatory bias.” (Feliciano v. Autozone, Inc. (2015) 316 Conn. 65, 73–74.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The burden of establishing a prima facie case [of discrimination] is a burden of production, not a burden of proof, and therefore involves no credibility assessment by the fact finder....” (Phadnis v. Great Expression Dental Ctrs. of Conn., P.C. (2017) 170 Conn. App. 79, 87-88 [internal citations omitted].)

“The level of proof required to establish a prima facie case is minimal and need not reach the level required to support a jury verdict in the plaintiff's favor.” (Id.)

“In addition to proffering direct evidence of discrimination with respect to the fourth prong, ‘a litigant may present circumstantial evidence from which an inference may be drawn that similarly situated individuals were treated more favorably than she was.’” (Id.)

The Court’s Decision

Even if a plaintiff's claim is based solely on Connecticut law, “Connecticut anti-discrimination statutes should be interpreted in accordance with federal antidiscrimination laws.” (Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. (2008) 286 Conn. 390, 407.)

Indeed, “[i]n defining the contours of an employer's duties under [the]state anti-discrimination statutes, [courts] have looked for guidance to federal case law interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal statutory counterpart to § 46a-60.” (Taing v. Camrac, LLC (2019) 189 Conn. App. 23, 27 citing Brittell v. Dept. of Correction (1998) 247 Conn. 148, 164.)

In employment discrimination cases “[a] plaintiff is not required to show that the employer's proffered reasons were false or played no role in the employment decision, but only that they were not the only reasons and that the prohibited factor was at least one of the ‘motivating’ factors.” (Phadnis, supra, 170 Conn. App. at 90 quoting Croninv. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1995) 46 F.3d 196, 203.)

Documents for Sex/Gender Discrimination in Connecticut

Sort By

LAMONTAGNE, SARA v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Et Al document preview

APPEAL TO JD SUPERIOR COURT

29 pages

eo RETURN DATE: April 2, 2024 : SUPERIOR COURT SARA MICHELLE LAMONTAGNE VS CONNECTICUT COMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITITES, STATE OF CONNECTICUT : MARCH 7,2024 APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT To the Superior Court of Litchfield County, Sara Lamontane, the plaintiff, petitions this administ…

Case Name LAMONTAGNE, SARA v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Et Al