no evidence that it was the defendant, versus the other
deputy chiefs or any of Citta’s other supervisors or
command staff, who directed him to stop sharing infor-
mation with the intelligence center.15 The plaintiff’s
assertion that it was the defendant who gave the order
to stop cooperating with the intelligence center is based
merely on speculation, which is insufficient to create
an issue of fact to defeat summary judgment.16
Even if the plaintiff had demonstrated that a genuine
issue of material fact exists as to whether the defendant
ordered the crime center unit to stop cooperating with
the intelligence center, that fact is immaterial to the
plaintiff’s burden to prove retaliatory animus by the
defendant toward the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed
to identify any evidence that the alleged retaliatory ani-
mus that may be inferred by the lack of cooperation
with the intelligence center following Citta’s removal
was targeted at the plaintiff versus the intelligence cen-
ter. This is particularly evident in light of the undisputed
facts that the plaintiff filed the report at the direction
of Corey and Darcy and that the plaintiff had no role
in the decision to transfer Citta back to the Hartford
police.17
orders from [the defendant] not to cooperate with [the intelligence center]
until he received a written apology or command staff changed.’’ He then
cites to a memo sent to him by Benoit regarding a conversation that Benoit
had with Citta. The plaintiff’s citation to the trial court record is ‘‘Pl. Ex.
16.’’ That memo is not plaintiff’s exhibit 16. Our review of the record reveals
that that memo was not submitted to the trial court. Moreover, we have
reviewed that memo, which the plaintiff improperly included in the appendix
to his principal appellate brief, and it makes no mention of the defendant.
15
Indeed, Citta also indicated that it was his decision that he, himself,
would not share information with the intelligence center and that he could
not make that decision for his unit.
16
The plaintiff also argues that ‘‘[a] reasonable fact finder could infer
retaliatory intent from the subsequent threats and warnings that were given
to [him] not to pursue his claims and grievances.’’ The plaintiff has failed
to provide any evidence that these alleged threats and warnings came from
or were directed by the defendant.
17
The plaintiff also argues that the defendant demonstrated retaliatory
animus when he refused to replace Citta after he was transferred back to
Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0