Samakaab v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., AC 39067
Decision Date | 07 November 2017 |
Docket Number | AC 39067 |
Citation | 178 Conn.App. 52,173 A.3d 1004 |
Parties | Hasan SAMAKAAB v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Hasan Samakaab, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).
Carolyn Ennis, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were George Jepsen, attorney general, and Ann E. Lynch, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).
DiPentima, C.J., and Alvord and Pellegrino, Js.
In this employment discrimination action, the plaintiff, Hasan Samakaab, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the Department of Social Services. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly held that insufficient facts were presented to support a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record and the trial court's opinion reveal the following facts and procedural history. The plaintiff is employed as an eligibility services specialist by the defendant. On September 5, 2013, the plaintiff interviewed for a promotion to the position of eligibility services supervisor. On the basis of the plaintiff's responses during his interview, he was no longer considered for the eligibility services supervisor position. On December 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed the operative complaint against the defendant in Superior Court. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he was denied a promotion because of his age, sex, national origin, and his prior opposition to unlawful employment practices in violation of General Statutes § 46a–60 of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a–51 et seq. Following the close of discovery, on November 9, 2015, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's complaint. On March 10, 2016, the court, Scholl, J., issued a memorandum of decision rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The court found that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, principally his self-serving affidavit and deposition testimony, did not support a finding that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the plaintiff had been discriminated against in the denial of a promotion, or retaliated against because he had engaged in a protected activity.
Upon examination of the record on appeal and the briefs and 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 arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt its well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues. See Samakaab v. Dept. of Social Services, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV–15–6056335–S, 2016 WL 1397516 (March 10, 2016) (reprinted in 178 Conn.App. 52, 173 A.3d 1004). It would serve no useful purpose for this court to engage in any further discussion. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010) ; Geiger v. Carey, 170 Conn.App. 459, 462, 154 A.3d 1093 (2017).
The judgment is affirmed.
APPENDIX
HASAN SAMAKAAB
v.
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES*
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
Memorandum filed March 10, 2016
Memorandum of decision on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Motion granted.
Katrena Engstrom, for the plaintiff.
Carolynn Ennis, assistant attorney general, for the defendant.
This an action by the plaintiff, Hasan Samakaab, pursuant to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a–60 et seq., against his employer, the defendant state of Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS). The plaintiff claims that he was denied a promotion to the position of eligibility services supervisor on December 1, 2013, because of his age, sex, Somalian descent, and his prior opposition to unlawful employment practices.
The defendant has moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims because he cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation and, in any event, the decision not to promote him was made for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reason. In support of its position, the defendant submitted portions of the plaintiff's deposition; exhibits to the deposition, which included: the plaintiff's affidavit of illegal discrimination provided to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the job description for eligibility supervisor, a letter to the commissioner of DSS signed by the plaintiff as well as others; the affidavit of Astread Ferron–Poole, the director of administration for DSS; and the affidavit of Lisa Wells, social services operations manager for DSS. The plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment as well as his affidavit; his deposition; the letter to the commissioner also submitted by the defendant; his responses to interrogatories; and letters and memos of recommendation and appreciation.
(Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Squeo v. Norwalk Hospital Assn., 316 Conn. 558, 593–95, 113 A.3d 932 (2015).
Section 46a–60 provides in relevant part:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gawlik v. Semple
...in any further discussion. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway , 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010) ; Samakaab v. Dept. of Social Services , 178 Conn. App. 52, 54, 173 A.3d 1004 (2017).The judgment is affirmed.AppendixJAN GAWLIK v. SCOTT SEMPLE ET AL.* Superior Court, Judicial District of N......
-
Adams v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles
...of New Britain, Docket No. CV–16–6033742–S (March 7, 2017) (reprinted at 182 Conn. App. 169); see also Samakaab v. Dept. of Social Services , 178 Conn. App. 52, 54, 173 A.3d 1004 (2017).The judgment is affirmed.APPENDIXNICHOLAS ADAMS v . COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES* Superior Court, Judic......
-
Fisk v. BL Cos.
...in any further discussion. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway , 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010) ; Samakaab v. Dept. of Social Services , 178 Conn. App. 52, 54, 173 A.3d 1004 (2017).The judgment is affirmed.APPENDIXBRANDON SMITH v. BL COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.* Superior Court, Judicial Dis......
-
Smith v. BL Cos.
...in any further discussion. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway , 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010) ; Samakaab v. Dept. of Social Services , 178 Conn. App. 52, 54, 173 A.3d 1004 (2017).The judgment is affirmed.AttachmentAPPENDIXBRANDON SMITH v. BL COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.*Superior Court, Jud......