Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Lassen v. Hartford, 223 Conn. App. 285 (2024)

Citation
Lassen v. Hartford, 223 Conn. App. 285 (2024)
Parent Document
Lassen v. Hartford, 223 Conn. App. 285 (2024)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2024-01-09

Full Text

4,273 chars
The plaintiff, whose prior employment as a police officer with the defendant
   city of Hartford had been terminated, sought to recover damages from
   the city for, inter alia, its failure to rehire him as a police officer because
   of his disability, narcolepsy. The city had posted a job listing seeking
   applications from nonresidents of Hartford for a police officer position.
   Applicants were required to apply online and to include with their appli-
   cations a ‘‘CHIP’’ card signifying that they had successfully completed
   certain physical ability tests required of police officer candidates. The
   plaintiff, who was not a resident of Hartford, was among fifty-two appli-
   cants who did not submit a CHIP card with their applications and, thus,
   was determined by the city to be unqualified for the police officer
   position. In a two count complaint alleging violations of a provision
   (§ 46a-60) of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-51
   et seq.), the plaintiff claimed that the city had discriminated against
   him on the basis of his disability and retaliated against him for having
   previously brought a lawsuit against the city in connection with the
   termination of his prior employment as a police officer. The city, which
   was aware at the time the plaintiff applied for the police officer position
   that he had been diagnosed with narcolepsy, moved for summary judg-
   ment, asserting that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to both
   counts of the plaintiff’s complaint and that it was therefore entitled to
   judgment as a matter of law. The court granted the city’s motion, conclud-
   ing that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff had
   failed to establish a prima facie case of either disability discrimination
   or retaliation and that, even if he had established a prima facie case as
   to those claims, summary judgment was warranted on both counts
   because the city had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and
   nonretaliatory reason for its decision not to rehire the plaintiff, namely,
   his failure to submit the required CHIP card with his application, which
   he thereafter failed to establish was pretextual. On the plaintiff’s appeal
   to this court, held that the trial court properly rendered summary judg-
   ment for the city: the undisputed evidence in the record established
   that the sole reason for the city’s decision not to rehire the plaintiff was
   his failure to submit a CHIP card with his job application and, although
   the plaintiff claimed that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to
   whether the city’s reason was pretextual because the job application
   did not identify a CHIP card as a document that needed to be submitted
   with the job application, whereas the job posting listed the CHIP card
   as a document required to be submitted with the job application, it
   would have been purely speculative for this court to infer from that
   inconsistency that the city was motivated to discriminate or retaliate
   against the plaintiff when that circumstance would have had the same
   effect on all applicants; moreover, the plaintiff did not provide any
   evidence to contradict the city’s evidence that the city had conducted
   a screening process after which applicants, including the plaintiff, who
   had failed to submit CHIP cards with their applications were eliminated
   from consideration and not hired, nor did the plaintiff provide evidence
   of any connection between the city’s determination that he was unquali-
   fied for the police officer position and his medical diagnosis or with
   his having previously filed suit against the city in connection with its
   termination of his prior employment as a police officer; furthermore,
   the plaintiff’s disagreement with the city’s requirement that he submit
   a CHIP card with his application was immaterial and did not render the
   city’s reason for not rehiring him pretextual, there having been no genu-
   ine issue of material fact that all applicants were required to submit a
   CHIP card, regardless of whether they were certified police officers.
        Argued October 2, 2023—officially released January 9, 2024