Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)

Citation
Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Parent Document
Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2024-06-11

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text

2,425 chars
General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 31-51q1 and 42 U.S.C.
       § 1983. We agree with the plaintiff as to counts two and
       three of the operative complaint, which set forth the
       plaintiff’s claims under § 31-51q, and, accordingly, reverse
       in part the judgment of the trial court.
         We begin by setting forth the facts, as alleged in
       the plaintiff’s operative complaint,2 and the procedural
       history of this case. The plaintiff is employed by the
       Hartford Police Department (department). In February,
       2016, a fellow employee, Detective Samuel Cruz, com-
       plained to the plaintiff that he was being subjected to
       discriminatory treatment by his supervisor, Sergeant
       Shawn St. John, on the basis of his race. Cruz told
       the plaintiff that St. John was declining to enter Cruz’
       overtime into the department’s payroll system.
          The plaintiff immediately reported Cruz’ complaint
       to Lieutenant Brandon O’Brien, the commander of the
       vice, intelligence, and narcotics unit of the department,
       in which the plaintiff was a sergeant at that time. O’Brien
       ordered the plaintiff not to get involved and assured
       the plaintiff that he would take care of Cruz’ complaint.
       Cruz subsequently told the plaintiff that O’Brien stated
       that he was unable to help with his complaint. The
       plaintiff told Cruz that O’Brien’s response was ‘‘unac-
       ceptable’’ and suggested that Cruz contact their union
       or the department’s investigative services bureau for
       further assistance. Cruz followed the plaintiff’s advice
       and reported his complaint to the union and the depart-
       ment’s internal affairs division, and he openly acknowl-
       edged that the plaintiff had suggested that he do so.
         In September, 2017, Cruz filed a complaint with the
       Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO)
         1
           Hereinafter, all references to § 31-51q in this opinion are to the 2019
       revision of the statute.
         2
           ‘‘[I]n ruling on a motion to strike, we take the facts alleged in the com-
       plaint as true.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ring v. Litchfield Banc-
       orp, 174 Conn. App. 813, 815, 167 A.3d 462 (2017).
Page 4                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0