Connecticut Corrections Officer's Sexual Harassment Claim Fails After Refusing Transfer Offer

Contact the experienced employment law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

In the case of Britell v. Department of Corrections, an employee sued his employer alleging the existence of discriminating employment practices and a denial of the equal employment guarantee due to sexual harassment. To prove a work environment sexual harassment claim, the employee must establish that: (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome sexual/harassment; (3) the harassment was based on sex; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment (for example, that the harassment was sufficiently pervasive or severe to create an abusive work environment); and (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action

The employee alleged discriminatory employment practices and a denial of the equal employment guarantee due to sexual harassment. The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities issued the necessary release allowing a civil action to be brought. The employee sought damages for sexual harassment that occurred when she was a correction officer. The employer denied the allegations contained in the complaint and pleaded three special defenses: (1) a failure to mitigate damages; (2) a claim that certain expenses and damages were subject to setoff because of the amount received by the employee in her workers' compensation case; and (3) a claim that the employee's case was barred by an accord and satisfaction because the workers' compensation case was settled by a stipulation. The court found in favor of the employer. The court held that from the total picture as disclosed by the findings and legal references, the employee failed to prove the required fifth element of her hostile work environment claim. Specifically, the Department of Corrections had responded to the employees complaints by offering to transfer her to another facility.

In respect to the evidence, the court found in favor of the employer. “Not only were transfers recommended on a first available basis, a hardship transfer was arranged and offered for the all-women's facility at Niantic as the best way to separate the [female employee] from the rumors” said the court. “The [employee’s] rejections of Niantic and the proposed transfers to other jails or prisons were based on reasons that the court regards as untenable assuming that the [employee] wanted to continue as a correction officer.”

If you feel you have been mistreated by your employer or in your place of employment and would like to explore your employment law options, contact the experienced employment law attorneys today at 203-221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com. We have the experience and knowledge you need at this critical juncture. We serve clients in both New York and Connecticut including New Canaan, Bridgeport, White Plains, and Darien.

For continuous access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our YouTube channel. 

Source: Britell v. Department of Correction, 1997 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2451, 1997 WL 583840 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 8, 1997)