Connecticut Appellate Court Declines To Expand Definition Of "Supervisor" For Hostile Work Environment Claims

• Jurisdiction: Connecticut,United States,Federal
• Law Firm: Littler Mendelson
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Government, Public Sector, Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment, Employee Rights/ Labour Relations, Human Rights
• Author: Kyle Roseman and Paula N. Anthony
• Published date: 18 May 2023

In a recent decision, the Connecticut Appellate Court held that "supervisor" for hostile work environment discrimination claims brought under Connecticut law is the same as applied in similar federal claims brought pursuant to Title VII. The court's decision in Tenisha O'Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities¹ marks the first time Connecticut appellate courts have addressed the definition of "supervisor" under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA).

The Path to the Appellate Court

The plaintiff worked as an adjudicator for the Connecticut Department of Labor. She filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) alleging that the program service coordinator to whom she reported subjected her to a hostile work environment based on her race and color in violation of CFEPA.

At public hearing, the administrative law judge ruled in favor of the employer, concluding that although the program coordinator had created a hostile work environment, the employer acted promptly and reasonably to remedy the situation and was therefore not negligent.

In her appeal of the ALJ's decision to the Connecticut Superior Court, the plaintiff argued that because the hostile work environment was created by her supervisor, the ALJ was required to impute liability to the employer. In response, the employer argued that even though the program coordinator was referred to as plaintiff's supervisor, she did not meet that definition under the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013). The court agreed and upheld the ALJ's decision.

The Vance Framework

In Vance, the Supreme Court outlined the framework for an employer's vicarious liability for the conduct of its employees with respect to claims of a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. Under Vance, if the employee who created the hostile work environment is a "supervisor," the employer will be liable for the supervisor's conduct, regardless of whether the harassment resulted in a "tangible employment action," unless an employer can satisfy the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative legal defense.² However, if the employee is the plaintiff's co-worker and not a supervisor, the employer will only be liable if the plaintiff establishes that the employer was negligent in controlling its working conditions.

The term "supervisor" is not defined in Title VII, but the Supreme Court defined the term for purposes of Title VII...