CRADLE, C. J. The plaintiff, Timothy Begley, appeals
from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court
in favor of the defendant James Rovella1 on his claim
alleging that he was transferred in retaliation for filing
a report of another police officer’s sexual harassment
of a female officer in violation of General Statutes § 46a-
60 (b) (4).2 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court
erred in rendering summary judgment in favor of the
defendant because it improperly concluded that no gen-
uine issue of material fact existed as to whether he had
established a prima facie case of retaliation. We affirm
the judgment of the trial court.3
The record before the trial court,4 viewed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party,
1
The state of Connecticut and Stavros Mellekas also are defendants in
this action but are not parties to this appeal. We therefore refer in this
opinion to Rovella as the defendant.
2
General Statutes § 46a-60 (b) provides in relevant part: ‘‘It shall be a
discriminatory practice in violation of this section . . .(4) [f]or any . . .
employer . . . to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any
person because such person has opposed any discriminatory employment
practice . . . has filed a complaint or testified or assisted in any proceeding
under section 46a-82, 46a-83 or 46a-84 . . . .’’
3
Because we agree that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a genuine
issue of material fact existed as to whether he had established a prima facie
case of retaliation, we do not reach his additional claim that the trial court
erred in concluding that he also failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue
of material fact existed as to whether the defendant’s proffered legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for transferring him was pretextual.
4
At oral argument, counsel for the defendant alerted this court that several
pages of deposition transcripts that were included in the plaintiff’s appellate
brief were not presented to the trial court in opposition to summary judg-
ment. Counsel for the plaintiff thereafter sent correspondence to this court,
explaining: ‘‘On appeal, as [the plaintiff’s] counsel was setting out the facts
and arguments for the [a]ppellate [b]rief, counsel realized the error. The
[a]ppellate [b]rief was largely identical to the statement of facts in the
[o]bjection to [s]ummary [j]udgment, but the proper page references were
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0