In Ridenour v. American Ambulance Service, Inc. et al, Docket No. KNL-CV-21-6052029S, 2023 WL 2134428 (Conn.Super. Feb. 17, 2023), the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claim of sex-based discrimination.
The court summarized plaintiff’s claim as follows:
Plaintiff was terminated from his employment based upon a sexual harassment complaint made by a fellow employee. Plaintiff is male; the complainant is female. Plaintiff alleges in this case that he was terminated because of his sex and/or gender and based on the sex and/or gender of the complainant. In essence, he argues that because he is a male and the complainant is a female, the defendants credited the complainant’s version of the events and terminated his employ without a proper investigation. The crux of his complaint is that the defendants did not follow their policy for investigations of such complaints and that plaintiff was terminated because of a clearly irregular investigative or adjudicative process.
After outlining the principles of “black letter” law, the court applied it to the facts, as follows:
Plaintiff has clearly alleged that “he suffered an adverse employment action, and that this action came in response to accusations (if not an actual finding) of sexual harassment. Similarly, [he] has plausibly alleged facts that suggest at least some pressure on [defendants] to react more forcefully to allegations of male sexual misconduct. The only remaining question, then, is whether his firing followed a sufficiently irregular process to raise an inference of bias.
Defendants allege that their termination of plaintiff was done in good faith and for legitimate business reasons. They further allege that plaintiff was no longer qualified for the position because of his acts of sexual harassment. A material fact exists as to the motivation of the defendants in terminating the plaintiff and whether the motivation was based on the sex of the plaintiff and/or the complainant, and whether the termination was done for legitimate reasons and not as a pre-text to sexual discrimination. The court need not determine precisely what constitutes a “clearly irregular investigative or adjudicative process”. “… [W]here decision-makers choose ‘to accept an unsupported accusatory version over [that of the accused], and declined even to explore the testimony of [the accused],’ this too ‘gives plausible support to the proposition that they were motivated by bias.’ ” The factual record in this case reflects genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants conducted a clearly irregular investigative or adjudicative process in terminating plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff was not told the identity of his accuser, nor was he provided sufficient details regarding the complaint. Defendants failed to investigate plaintiff’s denial, including failing to conduct a review of phone records of the plaintiff and complainant. Genuine issues of material facts exist as to the motivation of the defendants in firing the plaintiff, and whether their stated reason was a pre-text to sex discrimination. The defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the first count.
[Cleaned up.]
The court also denied defendants’ motion as to plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding issues of fact as to, for example, whether the alleged conduct was “extreme and outrageous.”