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

In the case of Andreoni v. Forest Enterprises, a former employee sued his former employers, alleging racial discrimination and discriminatory retaliation in violation of Connecticut state law. The former employee's complaint alleged that an African-American maintenance worker whom he supervised repeatedly cursed, threw objects at, directed racial epithets against, and threatened to harm plaintiff and a co-worker, who were both Caucasian. The former employee claims he made several reports of this misconduct to his employers, who refused to take any disciplinary action; and that they ultimately fired the employee for creating dissent on the team that affected the morale and performance of the maintenance department.

To establish a claim for discrimination, the former employee must prove that: (1) he is in the protected class, as defined under Connecticut's Fair Employment Practices Act and the Federal Age Descrimination in Employment Act; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Should the former employee establishes such a case, the employer then must produce legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its adverse employment action. The former employee's retaliation claim requires a showing of four elements: (1) that he participated in a protected activity; (2) that the employer knew of the protected activity; (3) an adverse employment action against him; and (4) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. In other words, the employee must prove that his reporting of the harassment was the reason his employer's terminated his employment

The employers argued in support of summary judgment that the termination of plaintiff's employment was based on his poor performance and not on a discriminatory or retaliatory motive. The court held that the letter and deposition testimony submitted by former employee 1) raised the question of whether his firing occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination; 2) raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he participated in a protected activity and whether the employers knew of the protected activity; and 3) alleged an injury sufficient for the purpose of the negligent supervision and negligent retention claims.

In respect to the evidence offered by the former employee, the employers' motion for summary judgment was denied.

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: Andreoni v. Forest Enters., 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1047, 2010 WL 2196525 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 21, 2010)