Opinion
No. CV 04-4001083S
February 8, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff has filed a one-count complaint alleging a cause of action pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 31-290a. The defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the plaintiff was discharged from her employment based on its "absence control policy" and that she was physically unable to work until March 22, 2004.
The plaintiff points out that the absence control policy was not known to the plaintiff or her supervisor Sandy Tetrault. Further, the plaintiff indicates that the policy was shortened from 24 weeks to 16 weeks while the plaintiff was recovering from surgery.
The plaintiff raises the issue as to whether the invocation of the absence policy was a pretext in the discharge of the plaintiff and questions the motive of defendant in firing the plaintiff. There is also a question as to the application of the defendant's absence control policy as it applies to the plaintiff under the circumstances.
Both counsel cite the cases of Chiaia v. Pepperidge Farms, Inc., 24 Conn.App. 362 and Ford v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., 216 Conn. 40. In Chiaia, supra, the court indicates that to establish a prima facie case under § 31-290a, a plaintiff bears the burden of showing discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. In Chiaia, supra, issues of fact were determined by the workers compensation commissioner after a hearing and in Ford, the issue of discrimination went to the jury. In both cases findings of fact were made by a fact finder after an evidentiary hearing.
In reviewing the documents supplied in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment and in opposition thereto, the court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact as to the motives of defendant in discharging the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is entitled to her day in court to attempt to meet her burden of proof pursuant to the holding in Chiaia.
Accordingly, the defendant's Motion for summary Judgment is hereby denied.