Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)

Citation: Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)
Parent Document: Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2012-05-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2297138/eagen-v-commission-on-human-rig... ↗

Full Text

976 chars

his discharge could not be considered an “adverse employment action.” In response, the defendants argue that the court’s construction of the term “personnel action” as having essentially the same meaning as “employment action” was correct and that the referee utilized the proper standard in deciding this case. Furthermore, the defendants argue that, although the plaintiff contends that these terms have differing meanings, the plaintiff fails to explain or set forth the alleged differences or what standard the referee should have utilized. Additionally, they argue that the plaintiffs actions in failing to return Schwartz’ personal belongings properly were considered to be an adverse employment action, which, is defined in case law as an action that “would dissuade a reasonable employee from whistle-blowing.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) We will consider this claim in two parts, beginning with the meaning of term “personnel action,” as used in § 4-61dd. 4 A

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text