crime center unit] . . . immediately stopped sharing
information with . . . [the intelligence center].’’ Citta
was transferred from the intelligence center on March 3,
2016. Although the defendant learned of Citta’s transfer
from Foley in March, 2016, the undisputed evidence
demonstrates that the defendant did not see the report
until he was deposed in this case.13 As noted herein, it
is undisputed that the plaintiff did not discuss the report
with the defendant or anybody else at the Hartford
police, nor did the plaintiff have any dealings at all
with the defendant. After the investigation into Citta’s
conduct was completed in September, 2016, the defen-
dant received a copy of the report of the investigation
from Darcy. Although that report listed the plaintiff as
the complainant, there is no evidentiary basis on which
a reasonable fact finder could infer that the defendant
knew before September, 2016, that the plaintiff had
filed the report. Therefore, there also is no evidentiary
basis on which one could infer that any alleged retalia-
tion that occurred immediately following Citta’s trans-
fer in March, 2016, could be attributed to the defendant.
See Mele v. Hartford, 270 Conn. 751, 778, 855 A.2d
196 (2004) (discrimination complaint dismissed where
insufficient evidence to prove that plaintiff had exer-
cised rights under Workers’ Compensation Act, General
13
In support of his argument that the defendant ‘‘had knowledge of [the
plaintiff’s] protected conduct,’’ the plaintiff cited, in his memorandum of
law in opposition to summary judgment, an excerpt of the defendant’s
deposition testimony wherein he purportedly testified that he had received
a copy of the report in March, 2016, which allegedly caused the defendant
to retaliate by directing the Hartford police to cease sharing information
with the intelligence center. The pages cited by the plaintiff, however, do
not support the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant received a copy of
the report filed by the plaintiff in March, 2016. The testimony cited by the
plaintiff refers to the report of the completed investigation of the incident
involving Citta, which was provided to the defendant by Darcy in September,
2016. The defendant submitted excerpts of the defendant’s deposition testi-
mony wherein the defendant testified that he did not see the report until
he was deposed in this case. The plaintiff has not cited to any evidence
disputing that testimony.
Page 12 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0