February 7, 2019
to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination, and
for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the
judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Bright,
J., granted the defendant's motion for summary
judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the
plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
V. Sabatini, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Victoria Woodin Chavey, with whom was Collin O'Connor
Udell, for the appellee (defendant).
Madeo filed a brief for the Commission on Human Rights and
Opportunities as amicus curiae.
Lavine, Moll and Bear, Js.
employment discrimination action, the plaintiff, Drey
Andrade, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the
trial court in favor of the defendant, Lego Systems, Inc. On
appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly
concluded that there was insufficient evidence from which a
reasonable jury could conclude that the circumstances
surrounding the defendant's termination of the
plaintiff's employment could give rise to an inference of
discrimination on the basis of his sexual orientation. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
record and the trial court's opinion reveal the following
relevant facts and procedural history. The plaintiff was
employed by the defendant on or about October 12, 2009, as
Distribution Operations Manager CED. In that position, the
plaintiff reported to the defendant's Director of
Distribution, Americas (director). In his complaint, the
plaintiff alleged that he is a homosexual and that the
defendant was aware of his sexual orientation. He further
alleged that the director treated him in an adversely
different manner than she treated other employees who
reported directly to her. During a performance review in
September, 2010, the director informed the plaintiff that his
performance with respect to his communication skills,
collaboration, and trust building with his manager and
employees whom he supervised was deficient, and that he
needed to improve. She provided him with a performance plan.
In subsequent performance reviews, the director informed the
plaintiff of her continuing concerns regarding his job
performance and once offered to transfer him to another
position where he could apply his operational strengths, but
would be free from managing other employees. The plaintiff
addressed some of his deficient performance issues, but
concerns remained. The plaintiff was again placed on a
performance plan, which he did not satisfactorily address.
The defendant terminated the plaintiff's employment on
May 9, 2013.
plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant on August
22, 2014, alleging that the defendant discriminated against
him on the basis of his sexual orientation in violation of
General Statutes § 46a-60 (a) (1). After the pleadings
were closed, the defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment, claiming that judgment should be rendered in its
favor because the plaintiff had failed to present evidence
from which a rational fact finder could infer that the
defendant terminated his employment on the basis of his
sexual orientation. On January 26, 2018, the trial court
granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The
basis of our review of the record, the briefs, and the
arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of
the trial court should be affirmed. Because the court's
memorandum of decision thoroughly addresses the claim and
arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt its well reasoned
decision as a proper statement of the facts and the
applicable law on the issues. See Andrade v.
Lego Systems, Inc., Superior Court, judicial
district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-14-6053523-S (January 26,
2018) (reprinted at 188 Conn.App. 655, A.3d). It would serve
no useful purpose for this court to engage in any further
discussion. See, e.g., Samakaab v. Dept. of
Social Services, 178 Conn.App. 52, 54, 173 A.3d 1004
(2017); see also Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297
Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010).
judgment is affirmed.