Oral Care Dental Grp. II, LLC v. Pallet

• Decision Date: 21 June 2022
• Docket Number: AC 43877
• Citation: 213 Conn.App. 389,277 A.3d 860
• Parties: ORAL CARE DENTAL GROUP II, LLC v. Shanteema PALLET et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

213 Conn.App. 389

277 A.3d 860

ORAL CARE DENTAL GROUP II, LLC

v.Shanteema PALLET et al.

AC 43877

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 6, 2022

Officially released June 21, 2022

Michael E. Roberts, human rights attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Charles Krich, principal attorney, for the appellant (defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities).

David L. Gussak, Farmington, with whom, on the brief, was Gary Greene, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Bright, C. J., Elgo and Suarez, Js.

BRIGHT, C. J.

The defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission) appeals from the judgment of the trial court vacating the human rights referee's damages award for garden-variety emotional distress to the defendant Shanteema Pallet,¹ in her sexual harassment complaint against the plaintiff, Oral Care Dental Group II, LLC. On appeal, the commission claims that the court erred when it vacated the damages award after concluding that the plaintiff was prejudiced by Pallet's failure to produce certain medical records.² We agree with the commission and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court with direction to deny the plaintiff's administrative appeal.

The following facts, as found by the referee, and procedural history are relevant to our analysis of the commission's claim. Pallet worked as a marketer for the plaintiff from April 16 to December 15, 2012. During that time, Christopher Mertens was Pallet's direct supervisor. Shortly after Pallet began working for the plaintiff, Mertens started to sexually harass her, both at work and after hours. He regularly commented on Pallet's appearance, made sexually explicit comments to her, ordered her to dress a certain way, invited her to private lunches and dinners, and repeatedly called and texted her, often to ask her out on dates. At one point, after Mertens learned that Pallet was dating someone else, he punished her by cutting her hours and taking away her weekly gas cards. This led Pallet to tell Mertens, falsely, that she no longer had a boyfriend so that she could get her hours and gas cards back. After learning that Pallet was still dating her boyfriend, Mertens fired her in December, 2012.

Thereafter, "[o]n June 13, 2013, [Pallet] filed a complaint with the [commission] alleging employment based sexual harassment and discrimination in violation of General Statutes §§ 46a-60³ and 46a-58 (a)⁴ with a deprivation of rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (Title VII),⁵ as its factual predicate." (Footnotes added.) In her complaint, Pallet specifically alleged that Mertens had sexually harassed her by commenting on her appearance and her body, regularly asking her out on dates, and calling and texting her during nonwork hours. Pallet further alleged that Mertens had discriminated against her after she rebuffed his repeated advances, first by reducing her hours and taking away her gas cards, then by firing her, and that "the [plaintiff's] actions have caused me to suffer monetary damages and emotional distress." The plaintiff summarily denied the allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination in Pallet's complaint.

The commission scheduled a public hearing, which was held before a referee on March 28, 29 and 30, 2017, and on June 30, 2017. At the hearing, Pallet first testified as to Mertens’ harassing and discriminatory conduct.⁶ As to the effects Mertens’ conduct had on her, Pallet testified on direct examination that Mertens’ conduct made her uncomfortable and stressed her out. Specifically, she testified: "The way he wanted me to dress is not usually how I would dress. The shorter outfits when it was cold [were] uncomfortable, extremely uncomfortable. When he just gawked at me when I wore them was demeaning, like I felt less than, like, I felt ... like a piece of meat, like, I felt dirty." She also testified that her communications with Mertens made her nervous and made her feel like her job was not secure unless she did what he wanted her to do. Pallet further testified that when Mertens fired her after learning that she was still dating her boyfriend: "[I]t just made me question ... my ability to work around men and be comfortable doing it. It made me feel disgusted with myself and depressed." When asked to describe how the firing affected her life, Pallet testified that she "got really depressed" and felt "worthless...." She testified that her depression caused her to lose interest in things, including engaging in activities with her son, and affected her ability to raise him. She further testified that what happened to her while working for the plaintiff caused her to look for work in just "the medical field with elderly people that ... maybe don't have any sexual wants or needs."

During her direct examination, Pallet was not asked about and did not testify about any medical treatment that she received to treat her depression. On cross-examination, however, the plaintiff's counsel asked Pallet whether she had ever sought professional help for the emotional distress Mertens had caused, and Pallet admitted that she had seen a psychiatrist. The plaintiff's counsel then asked Pallet why she had not produced medical records related to that treatment despite the plaintiff requesting such documents.⁷ Pallet's counsel objected, and the referee ruled that, because Pallet was claiming garden-variety emotional distress only, she was not required to produce any medical records. Despite this ruling, the plaintiff's counsel continued to cross-examine Pallet about her psychiatric treatment, and Pallet testified in response to a question by the plaintiff's counsel that the psychiatrist had prescribed her Zoloft

. The plaintiff's counsel then commented, apparently directed at Pallet's counsel, "[s]omething else you didn't produce my friend," which led the referee to again state that Pallet was not required to disclose her medical records. On redirect examination, Pallet was not asked any further questions and did not provide any further testimony regarding any medical treatment she received for her depression. Furthermore, although the referee asked Pallet a few questions about payments she received from the plaintiff during her employment, she did not ask questions about the emotional distress the plaintiff claimed or any issues of treatment brought out by the plaintiff's counsel during cross-examination. Pallet did not offer any other evidence regarding any treatment she received for her depression.

In a memorandum of decision dated May 16, 2018, the referee found in favor of Pallet, concluding that she had demonstrated "by a preponderance of the evidence [that she] suffered illegal sexual harassment ...."

The referee awarded Pallet $40,398 in back pay and $25,000 in damages for garden-variety emotional distress. The referee's award made no reference to any medical treatment Pallet received for her depression.

Thereafter, the plaintiff appealed to the trial court. On appeal, the plaintiff challenged the referee's damages award for garden-variety emotional distress, claiming that (1) Connecticut does not recognize a claim for garden-variety emotional distress and Pallet did not allege such distress, (2) emotional distress and the associated damages were not proven, and (3) the plaintiff was prejudiced by Pallet's failure to produce her medical records.⁸ In their briefs to the trial court, Pallet and the commission argued that the referee's award of garden-variety emotional distress damages was proper because (1) a claim for garden-variety emotional distress damages has long been recognized and (2) proving such damages does not require medical records or expert testimony.

The court disagreed with the plaintiff's first and second claims but agreed that the plaintiff had been substantially prejudiced by Pallet's failure to produce her medical records. More specifically, the court held that the plaintiff was prejudiced because the lack of those records prevented it from fully understanding the treatment Pallet received and inhibited the plaintiff's ability to "effectively cross-examine [Pallet] and offer counter evidence." The court also held that "[l]imiting [Pallet's] claim to garden-variety emotional distress damages did not undo the prejudice" because, "[a]lthough emotional distress damages may be proven without the need for expert medical evidence, unjustifiably withholding discoverable evidence relevant to the claim and the related damages is a separate issue, and may still impact the ability to defend that claim." On the basis of that prejudice, the court vacated the referee's damages award for garden-variety emotional distress. The commission then appealed to this court.

We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review and principles of law that guide our analysis. "It is well established that [j]udicial review of [an administrative agency's] action is governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act [(UAPA) General Statutes § 4-166 et seq. ] ... and the scope of that review is very restricted.... With regard to questions of fact, it is neither the function of the trial court nor of this court to retry the case or to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency.... [F]or conclusions of law, [t]he court's ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the [agency] has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.... [Thus] [c]onclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court determines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Cantillon , 207 Conn. App. 668, 672, 263 A.3d 887, cert. granted, 340 Conn. 909, 264 A.3d 94 (2021).⁹

Claims for garden-variety...