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

Statutes § 31-275 et seq., and that defendants knew that
          she had exercised those rights and discriminated
          against her based on that knowledge); Knoblaugh v.
          Marshall, 64 Conn. App. 32, 38, 779 A.2d 218 (plaintiff
          failed to meet burden of proving that defendant violated
          General Statutes § 31-290a of Workers’ Compensation
          Act where defendant was unaware of her intention to
          exercise rights under that act), cert. denied, 258 Conn.
          916, 782 A.2d 1243 (2001).
             The plaintiff likewise has failed to demonstrate that
          a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether
          the defendant directed the crime center unit to stop
          sharing information with the intelligence center. The
          defendant testified that neither he nor anybody else ‘‘in
          the executive team of the [Hartford police] ever [told]
          Citta that . . . [the crime center unit] was not going
          to cooperate with [the intelligence center] until there
          were new people in command at the organization.’’ The
          defendant testified that he ‘‘spoke with . . . Foley and
          instructed him that there should be no lapse in intelli-
          gence sharing between [the crime center unit] and [the
          intelligence center].’’ The plaintiff argues that Citta
          stated that the crime center unit’s refusal to share infor-
          mation with the intelligence center after his removal
          came from ‘‘the top,’’ and ‘‘[w]hen [Citta] referenced
          ‘the top’ he was referring to [the defendant].’’ In so
          arguing, the plaintiff mischaracterizes the evidence in
          the record. Citta testified that the decisions involving
          his investigation and whether to discontinue sharing
          information with the intelligence center were being han-
          dled ‘‘at the top . . . it’s my supervisors and it’s my
          command staff.’’ When asked whether ‘‘the top’’ was
          the defendant, Citta responded, ‘‘yeah, [the defendant]
          and . . . the other deputy chiefs and everybody in the
          place at the time.’’14 Although Citta included the defen-
          dant in his reference to ‘‘the top,’’ the plaintiff presented
            14
               In his principal appellate brief, the plaintiff asserts that, ‘‘on August 16,
          2016, Citta explicitly also told . . . Trooper [Benoit] that he was under
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 13