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

930 chars

The plaintiff next claims that there was not substantial evidence to show that his actions amounted to retaliation against Schwartz. He argues that some of the items Schwartz claims to have been missing were shown to have been delivered to him and that there was no evidence that the plaintiff retaliated against Schwartz. The defendants argue that “[t]he ultimate issue in this case is whether the admitted five and one-half month delay in . . . [returning Schwartz’] personal property, from July 29, 2008 ... to January 15, 2009 . . . and the admitted destruction and/or disappearance of at least some . . . personal property, was in retaliation for whistle-blowing. . . . The referee’s decision that the delay and destruction of the personal property was in retaliation for whistle-blowing is based upon the credibility of the witnesses. . . . Thus, the referee’s decision on the ultimate issue . . . was based squarely on *588

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text