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

1,222 chars

materially adverse, a change in working conditions must be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. . . . Examples of such a change include termination of employment, demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices . . . unique to a particular situation. . . . [T]he [employee] must show that [his] employer’s actions well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of [retaliation].” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) The defendants argue that the language of § 4-61dd does not require “extreme measures, such as termination” before its protections are implicated, but, rather, it requires only a “personnel [action that] would dissuade a reasonable employee from whistle-blowing.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Furthermore, they argue, the acts of withholding and failing to return personal items that were important to Schwartz in retaliation for his protected activities certainly was an action that would dissuade a reasonable person from whistle-blowing. We agree with the defendants.

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text