On November 15, 2023, following a hearing at which
the trial court heard argument from counsel,9 the court
issued a memorandum of decision granting summary
judgment in favor of the defendant as to count one
alleging retaliation. The court concluded, inter alia:
‘‘There is a lack of evidence of a temporal or logical
connection between the plaintiff’s protected activity
and the adverse employment action.’’10
The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to reargue and
for reconsideration on the grounds that ‘‘[t]he court
misapplied the legal standard for providing retaliatory
motive under the Fair Employment Practices Act [Gen-
eral Statutes § 46a-51 et seq.] and state and federal
Supreme Court precedent, ignored or failed to consider
much of the plaintiff’s evidence, impermissibly invaded
the province of the jury by improperly weighing the
evidence, made credibility determinations and failed to
consider all permissive inferences in a manner favor-
able to the plaintiff in its determination that no genuine
that it would consider the defendant’s motion to strike certain of the exhibits
submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to summary judgment simultaneously
with the motion for and objection to summary judgment. The court indicated
in its decision: ‘‘The [defendant] filed a motion to strike certain evidence
submitted with the plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment, on the
grounds that the items were not admissible evidence. See Docket Entry
#172. The court did not utilize these contested items in ruling on this motion;
consequently, it was not necessary to make a determination as to their
admissibility.’’ In arguing that the court ‘‘erroneously disregarded the plain-
tiff’s summary judgment exhibits that had been the subject of the defendant’s
motion to strike,’’ the plaintiff neither identifies those exhibits, why they
should not have been disregarded nor how he was harmed by the court’s
decision not to consider them.
9
Following oral argument on the motion for summary judgment, the
plaintiff filed a supplemental response to the defendant’s motion for sum-
mary judgment on August 14, 2023, and the defendant filed a reply memoran-
dum of law on August 28, 2023.
10
The trial court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate
that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendant’s
proffered reason for the plaintiff’s transfer was pretextual. As previously
noted, we do not reach the plaintiff’s challenge to this conclusion. See
footnote 3 of this opinion.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7