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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131855/michel-v-hartford/ ↗

Full Text

1,952 chars

alleging that he was the subject of unlawful racial dis-
         crimination. The plaintiff supported Cruz’ filing of the
         complaint and ‘‘attempted to protect him’’ from further
         discrimination and retaliation within the department.
            Subsequently, the plaintiff was, among other things,
         removed from certain supervisory positions; removed
         from certain assignments that would result in the
         receipt of overtime compensation; assigned to ‘‘the
         most inconvenient shift possible for his family needs’’
         after he returned from paternity leave, despite a previ-
         ous agreement that he could work a shift that would
         enable him to assist his wife with childcare; and, even
         though he was promoted from the rank of sergeant to
         lieutenant, assigned to ‘‘a punishment position in patrol,
         which did not carry the same benefits as other lieuten-
         ant positions . . . .’’
            On October 23, 2018, the plaintiff testified at a deposi-
         tion in connection with Cruz’ CHRO complaint, and
         his testimony supported Cruz’ allegations. When the
         deposition ended, an attorney for the defendant apolo-
         gized to the plaintiff for the retaliation he already had
         endured and encouraged him to continue telling the
         truth. After providing this testimony, the plaintiff was
         not selected to become the new commander of the vice,
         intelligence, and narcotics unit, despite ‘‘his experience
         and his background [making] him indisputably the best
         candidate for the position.’’
           On December 20, 2019, the plaintiff testified at a
         second deposition on behalf of Cruz,3 ‘‘testifying favor-
         ably for [Cruz] and against the defendant.’’ Thereafter,
             The trial court’s memorandum of decision states that, on October 23,
             3

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text