Begley v. State, 234 Conn. App. 820 (2025)

defendant regarding the report; nor did he have any
         other dealings with the defendant. The defendant
         learned from the deputy chief of the Hartford police,
         Brian Foley, that there was an investigation regarding
         Citta’s conduct. The defendant did not speak to Citta
         regarding his transfer back to the Hartford police.
            In September, 2016, the investigation into the incident
         involving Citta was completed, and it was determined
         that the allegations in the report could not be substanti-
         ated because neither of the two officers who reported
         the incident to the plaintiff, nor the alleged victim, were
         willing to participate in the investigation or give a state-
         ment. Shortly thereafter, Darcy met with the defendant
         and gave the defendant a copy of the report of the
         findings of the investigation and discussed with him
         the lapse of information sharing between the crime
         center unit and the intelligence center. The defendant
         subsequently instructed Foley that ‘‘there should be no
         lapse in intelligence sharing between [the crime center
         unit] and [the intelligence center].’’
           The defendant left the Hartford police in February,
         2018. In February 2019, the defendant was confirmed
         as the commissioner of the department. On March 14,
         2019, the plaintiff was transferred from the intelligence
         center to Troop H in Hartford where he was assigned
         to work the midnight shift.
            The plaintiff initiated the present action against, inter
         alia, the defendant,7 claiming that his transfer out of
            7
              In count one of his operative second amended complaint, the plaintiff
         alleged that the state and the defendant violated § 46a-60 (b) (4) by transfer-
         ring him out of the intelligence center. In count two, the plaintiff alleged
         that the state, the defendant, and Colonel Stavros Mellekas of the state
         police violated § 46a-60 (b) (4) by refusing to promote him to lieutenant
         and imposing a two day suspension that was excessive and unsupported
         by evidence and state police policies. In count three, the plaintiff alleged
         that the state failed to promote him and imposed a two day suspension in
         violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (a).
            All of the defendants moved for summary judgment as to all three counts
         of the plaintiff’s complaint. The trial court denied summary judgment as to
0, 0                          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                        Page 5