Trejo v. Yale New Haven Hosp., AC 45207
| Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Parties | GERARDO TREJO v. YALE NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC. |
| Docket Number | AC 45207 |
| Decision Date | 18 April 2023 |
1
GERARDO TREJO
v.
YALE NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC.
No. AC 45207
Court of Appeals of Connecticut
April 18, 2023
Argued February 9, 2023
Procedural History
Action to recover damages for, inter alia, alleged employment discrimination, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Rosen, J., granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
James V. Sabatini, with whom, on the brief, was Zachary T. Gain, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Sarah R. Skubas, with whom, on the brief, was Jessica L. Murphy, for the appellee (defendant).
Bright, C. J., and Elgo and Clark, Js.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
In this employment discrimination action, the plaintiff, Gerardo Trejo, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of his former employer, the defendant, Yale New Haven Hospital, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On or about June 20, 2017, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission). On February 20, 2019, the commission released its jurisdiction over the plaintiffs complaint, and the plaintiff commenced this action in the Superior Court on May 20, 2019. In his three count complaint brought pursuant to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (act), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., the plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the act by discriminating against him on the basis of his gender and sexual orientation and by retaliating against him for making complaints regarding sexual orientation and gender discrimination. In support of his claims, the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that on or about July 1, 2013, he began as a resident in the defendant's vascular surgery residency program. He alleged that he is a homosexual man and that Timur Sarac, the defendant's chief of vascular surgery, was aware of the plaintiffs sexual orientation and "treated [him] differently than other residents, especially heterosexual male residents." The plaintiff alleged that, in November, 2015, he emailed Rosemary Fisher, a liaison between the residency program and the program's accreditation agency, and "complained about how he was being treated in his residency."
The plaintiff further alleged that, starting in 2016, the defendant "placed [him] on a remediation program." He alleged that, between June, 2016, and April, 2017, he met with Stephen Huot, a medical doctor employed by the defendant, on at least five occasions and that, during each meeting, the plaintiff stated "that he believed that he was being treated discriminatorily and that . . . Sarac had a preference toward the heterosexual male residents in the operating room." Specifically, the plaintiff averred that Sarac once asked him during a surgery if he had ever played T-ball as a kid and then laughed at the plaintiff and remarked, "of course you wouldn't." The plaintiff also alleged that Jonathan Cardella, a medical doctor employed by the defendant, behaved in a homophobic manner toward him by, inter alia, "regularly shout[ing] homophobic slurs during surgery." The plaintiff alleged that, on or about April 12, 2017, the defendant presented him with a letter stating that his contract would end on June 30,2017. He alleged that his employment was in fact terminated on or about
June 30, 2017. As a result, he alleged that the defendant violated the act by discriminating against him on the basis of gender and sexual orientation and by retaliating against him for making complaints regarding sexual orientation and gender discrimination in the workplace.
On August 19, 2019, the defendant filed its answer and special defenses to the plaintiffs complaint. On April 30,2021, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and an accompanying memorandum of law arguing, inter alia, that on the basis of the plaintiffs own deposition testimony and other evidence, there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In particular, the defendant argued that during the plaintiffs third year of his residency, "he was placed on a remediation plan to address clinical, academic, and administrative deficiencies. Various physicians found the plaintiffs performance to be very concerning, including many whom the plaintiff does not allege harbor any discriminatory animus. The plaintiffs deficiencies included repeatedly scoring very low on national standardized tests that were objectively prepared and scored by a third party. Ultimately, after nearly four years in the residency training program, the [defendant] dismissed the plaintiff from the program due to his persistent performance issues."
The defendant argued that the plaintiffs discrimination claims failed under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (McDonnell Douglas) burden shifting framework,[1] which our courts have employed in assessing claims of discrimination under the act, because "(1) the plaintiff cannot establish the fourth prong of his prima facie case requiring the existence of evidence giving rise to an inference of discrimination; and (2) there is no evidence that the [defendant's] legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiffs dismissal- repeated performance deficiencies-was merely a pretext for discrimination." As to the plaintiffs retaliation claim, the defendant argued that the claim fails because the plaintiff "cannot establish ... a causal connection between his protected activity and his dismissal, as his performance deficiencies were evaluated and addressed long before he engaged in protected activity" and because "there is no evidence that the [defendant's] nonretaliatory reason for his dismissal is pretextual."
On August 16, 2021, the plaintiff filed his objection to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, in which he argued that genuine issues of material fact existed, and, consequently, the defendant's motion should be denied. On September 3, 2021, the defendant filed its reply.
The court heard oral arguments on the defendant's motion for summary judgment on October 25, 2021. On December 14, 2021, the court issued a memorandum
of decision granting the defendant's motion. In its decision, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed, as a matter of law, to meet his burden to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of his gender or sexual orientation. The court also found that, even if the plaintiff had satisfied his burden of establishing a prima facie case, the defendant presented extensive, uncontroverted evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his discharge-namely, the plaintiffs persistent performance difficulties and low standardized exam scores-that the plaintiff could not show was pretextual. The court also rejected the plaintiffs retaliation claim on the basis that there was no evidence that the plaintiff complained about sexual orientation or gender discrimination before he received his nonrenewal notice. The plaintiff timely appealed from the court's judgment.
On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. On the basis of our examination of the record, and the briefs and arguments of the parties, and applying the well established principles that govern our review of a court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment in cases alleging violations of the act; see Stubbs v. ICare Management, LLC, 198 Conn.App. 511, 520-22, 233 A.3d 1170 (2020); we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. See, e.g., Luth v. OEM Controls, Inc., 203 Conn.App. 673, 252 A.3d 406 (2021). Because the court's memorandum of decision aptly addresses the plaintiffs arguments, we adopt its thorough and well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the facts and applicable law on these issues. See Trejo v. Yale New Haven Hospital, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-19-6112326-S (December 14, 2021) (reprinted at 218 Conn.App., A.3d). It would serve no useful purpose to repeat the discussion contained therein. See, e.g., U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Dallas, 213 Conn.App. 483, 487, 278 A.3d 1138 (2022); Luth v. OEM Controls, Inc., supra, 203 Conn.App. 677; Phadnis v. Great Expression Dental Centers of Connecticut, P.C, 170 Conn.App. 79, 81, 153 A.3d 687 (2017).
The judgment is affirmed.
APPENDIX
GERARDO TREJO
v.
YALE NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC.[*]
Memorandum filed December 14, 2021
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford File No. CV-19-6112326-S
Proceedings
Memorandum of decision on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Motion granted.
Zachary T. Gain, for the plaintiff.
Sarah R. Skubas and Jessica L. Murphy, for the defendant.
OPINION
ROSEN, J.
INTRODUCTION
In this action, the plaintiff, a gay man, alleges that he was wrongfully terminated from the defendant's vascular surgery residency program based on his sexual orientation and gender, and retaliation, in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. On April 30, 2021, the defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion is granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 30, 2019, the plaintiff, Gerardo Trejo, filed a three count complaint under CFEPA (complaint) against the defendant, Yale New Haven Hospital, Inc. In the first count of his complaint, the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial