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

2,366 chars
Specifically, the plaintiff alleged in relevant part that
       Cruz complained to the plaintiff that his supervisor ‘‘was
       racially discriminating against him by declining to enter
       his overtime into the department’s payroll system.’’ The
       plaintiff alleged that he ‘‘immediately reported the com-
       plaint’’ to his supervisor and provided Cruz with advice
       regarding who to contact for further assistance. The
       plaintiff also alleged that, ‘‘[i]n September, 2017, [Cruz]
       filed an administrative complaint with the [CHRO] relat-
       ing to his belief that he was the victim of unlawful racial
       discrimination,’’ and the plaintiff ‘‘supported [Cruz’] fil-
       ing of the complaint and attempted to protect him from
       further discrimination . . . .’’
          As to his testimony, the plaintiff alleged that, on Octo-
       ber 23, 2018, ‘‘[he] testified in a deposition for [Cruz’]
       CHRO complaint against the defendant. His testimony
       supported [Cruz’] allegations,’’ and, on December 20,
       2019, he ‘‘completed a second deposition on behalf of
       [Cruz], testifying favorably for him and against the
       defendant.’’ (Emphasis added.) In the relevant counts
       of the plaintiff’s complaint, the plaintiff also specifically
       alleged that the defendant actively discouraged him
       from complying with his obligation ‘‘to report and pre-
       vent racial discrimination.’’
          We conclude that these allegations, taken together,
       necessarily imply that the plaintiff’s deposition testi-
       mony supported Cruz’ discrimination claim. See Doe
       v. Cochran, supra, 332 Conn. 333 (considering facts
       ‘‘necessarily implied’’ from allegations); see also Mercer
       v. Champion, 139 Conn. App. 216, 232, 55 A.3d 772
       (2012) (when taken together, facts necessarily implied
       from plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to satisfy stat-
       utory requirement). We emphasize that we must con-
       strue the allegations ‘‘broadly and realistically, rather
       than narrowly and technically’’; (internal quotation
       marks omitted) Sepega v. DeLaura, supra, 326 Conn.
       791; and that we must construe them in the manner
Page 20                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0