Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Ayantola v. Board of Trustees of Technical Colleges, 976 A.2d 784 (2009)

Citation
Ayantola v. Board of Trustees of Technical Colleges, 976 A.2d 784 (2009)
Parent Document
Ayantola v. Board of Trustees of Technical Colleges, 976 A.2d 784 (2009)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2009-08-18

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text

1,036 chars
performance. The defendant hired a lawyer, Wendi Kemp, to conduct an investigation into the students’ complaints. Kemp met with students and the plaintiff and prepared a thorough report dated June 2, 2004. Kemp determined that there was “a great deal of student dissatisfaction with [the plaintiffs] courses; dissatisfaction that is deserving of further attention.” On June 30, 2004, Baccus informed the plaintiff in a letter that she had decided not to recommend him for promotion. In the letter, Baccus encouraged the plaintiff to, among other things, “[positively respond to student concerns in Deaf Culture 2 and ASL Literature courses regarding lack of classroom discussion and lack of interaction with students in these courses.” At trial, Baccus testified that the student complaints were “the major factor” in her decision not to promote the plaintiff. The court found that “based on the complaints and the investigative report, President Baccus was justified in failing to recommend the plaintiff for promotion in [June] 2004.”