[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. [Director of Human Resources] testified that her instruction was rooted in information security, noting [supervisor’s] office contained confidential information. Investigation cannot conclude that Jones has been aware of other employees using [supervisor’s] office and has not issued a similar directive. It is reasonable to conclude that while it was accepted practice among Complainant and her colleagues, upon becoming aware by witnessing Complainant do it, [Director of HR] directed that the practice stop. Finally a verbal instruction (versus a disciplinary action or counselling) would not constitute an adverse employment action.”
The investigation concluded that evidence does not support acts of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, or a retaliation in response to prior filings, but rather, “that Complainant’s request to join the collective bargaining unit and the ensuing conflict is more reasonably the genesis of discord between Complainant and Respondent. In other words, evidence more reasonably supports the belief that Respondent has made efforts to curtail the union, and as a result may have taken adverse action against Complainant. At the time of investigation, the Complainant was involved in a pending matter before the Department of Labor to adjudicate that issue, which is outside the scope of this investigation.”