DocketNumber: No. CV 93 053 31 99
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 9256
Judges: MALONEY, J.
Filed Date: 8/21/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The plaintiff filed a complaint with the defendant commission on July 9, 1992, alleging that her former employer, Nature Food Centres, Inc., had discriminated against her on account of her sex in violation of General statutes §§
After receiving the complaint, the commission launched an investigation. On June 8, 1993, the investigator issued a finding that there was no reasonable cause for believing that a discriminatory practice had occurred and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff timely requested reconsideration of the dismissal in accordance with §
The commission has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was filed more than forty-five days after the final decision. This motion may not be sustained. The commission assumes that its final decision was the dismissal of the complaint by the investigator. The decision on reconsideration, however, states that it "is the Commission's final decision on your complaint." The court has examined that decision. The commission unquestionably reconsidered its dismissal of the complaint as requested by the plaintiff. The fact that it essentially rejected the plaintiff's contentions does not alter the nature of the decision; that is, that it was a decision made after reconsideration. As such, it was the commission's final decision. Since the plaintiff filed her appeal within forty-five days after that decision, it was timely. See §§
In her appeal, the plaintiff asserts essentially three arguments: (1) that the commission's investigation of her complaint was neither thorough nor complete; (2) that the investigator's and commission's decisions were contrary to the evidence; and (3) that the investigator was biased against her.
Any investigation undertaken by the commission must be thorough. Adriani v. CHRO,
It does not appear that there were any other witnesses to the alleged discrimination or documentation of it. The plaintiff complains that the investigator gave too much weight to the statements of her superiors in the company, but that is another issue. In that regard, however, the court notes that "the reasonable cause standard requires the commission to consider all reliable probative evidence, including evidence unfavorable to the complainant's claim." Adriani v. CHRO, supra,
In her decision, the investigator found that the plaintiff's claim that she was discriminated against by being required to work longer hours than similarly CT Page 9259 situated male employees could not be substantiated. There was no statistical evidence of any such disparity in situated male employees could not be substantiated. There was no statistical evidence of any such disparity in treatment, and the investigator noted that the plaintiff's own statements indicated that there were non-discriminatory reasons for the extra long hours she put in during some weeks. With respect to the incident involving another employee, Chris Savio, whom the employer had allowed to leave early one day while denying the plaintiff's request for the same treatment, the investigator found that Savio was allowed to leave because of illness. The investigator concluded that this incident did not indicate discrimination against the plaintiff on account of her sex. There was ample evidence to support these findings in the record, especially the statements of Ed Schuman.
The investigator also found that the ultimate reason for the plaintiff's termination was her violation of company policy in calling in a new employee to begin work prior to the final OK from the district manager. Again, there was ample evidence to support this finding, notwithstanding the contrary statements made by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's claim concerning the commission's investigator is that the investigator was rude to her and once told her that she too readily ignored company rules. Such evidence, if it may be so characterized, is not sufficient to establish bias or prejudice on the part of a government official. "It has been generally recognized . . . that due process does not require that members of administrative agencies adhere in all respects to the exalted standards of impartiality applicable to the judiciary . . . A presumption of impartiality attends administrative determinations, and the burden of establishing a disqualifying interest on the part of an adjudicator rests upon the one seeking disqualification."Rado v. Board of Education,
As indicated in the above discussion of the investigator's report and findings in this case, her CT Page 9260 ultimate determination of no reasonable cause was based on her assessment of the statements of the plaintiff and company management, principally Ed Schuman. In essence, the investigator as fact-finder, gave greater weight to Schuman's version of the plaintiff's treatment on the job and eventual termination than she did to that offered by the plaintiff. Certainly, the statements of Schuman and others, if believed, supported the investigator's determination that no discrimination on account of her sex occurred here.
A review of basic principles of administrative law, especially with regard to investigations by the commission, is appropriate here. Provided the investigation is thorough, as the court has concluded was the case here, "in making the reasonable cause determination, the investigator, and the commission when reviewing the investigator's recommendation, are entitled to make findings on disputed issues of material fact by weighing the credibility of witnesses and drawing inferences." Adriani v. CHRO, supra,
As indicated, the court has reviewed the record in this case and finds that there is ample and substantial evidence to support the investigator's factual findings and conclusions of law. Accordingly, the court may not disturb those findings and conclusions notwithstanding that the plaintiff offered contrary evidence. In accordance with General Statutes §
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. CT Page 9261
MALONEY, J.