Opinion
No. CV 04 0083913 S
January 19, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On August 3, 2005, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there remains no genuine issue of material fact and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff is unable to show a causal connection between his complaint to the Connecticut and/or United States departments of labor and his termination of employment with the defendant. "Practice Book [§ 17-49] provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . . . In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394, 399, 876 A.2d 522 (2005).
Viewing the depositions, affidavits and accompanying documents in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, this court finds that an issue of material fact exists as to whether "there was a causal connection between [the plaintiff's] participation in [a] protected activity and his discharge." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn.App. 501, 507, 831 A.2d 260 (2003). Specifically, a question remains as to whether the defendant had notice of the plaintiff's complaints to the department of labor. Moreover, whether the plaintiff has provided "significantly probative evidence showing that the defendant's proffered reason [for the plaintiff's discharge] [was] pretextual and that a retaliatory intention resulted in [such] discharge"; id., is a question for the trier of fact. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.