[The NewCanaanite.com Summer Internship Program is sponsored by Karp Associates.]
State officials last week concluded that there is no reasonable cause to believe that a longtime municipal employee has been discriminated against on the basis of race, age or gender, as claimed.
Last summer, an African American woman, 59, who had started working for the town in October 2008, lodged a complaint against the town, claiming violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1967. Four months later, in October 2024, the Complainant alleged that after filing her initial complaint before the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), “Respondent discriminated and retaliated against her by reducing her hours from approximately 25 hours a week to 19 hours a week, and instructing her not to utilize her former supervisor’s (Chief Building Official) office when others are permitted to do so,” according to findings from CHRO Human Rights Representative Jessica Kohut, obtained through a public records request. The employee has filed a total of three complaints against the town, the third of which has been dismissed, failing to meet minimum requirements for a claim.
On July 16, investigators concluded that, “there is no reasonable cause for believing that a discriminatory practice has been or is being committed as alleged in the complaint,” Kohut wrote in the findings. According to the state agency’s review, the employee claims that the Director of Human Resources instructed [her supervisor] to not schedule her for more than 19 hours a week. However the investigation “determined this directive originated in April of 2023 when the Complainant initially requested to join AFSCME Local.”
It continued: “Simply, this directive predated both this complaint and the Complainant’s first complaint before the commission.”
In relation to the complainant’s claim that she was instructed not to use her supervisor’s office, the investigation concluded that “while testimony from Complainant’s colleagues supported her assertion that [supervisor] permitted the use of his office by staff, the occasional use of his office cannot be considered a term or condition of Complainant’s employment but more a personal favor.
