The Appellate Court docket of Connecticut has declined to reinstate a gender and being pregnant discrimination go well with by means of a provider aider who was once fired by means of a Simsbury dealership for insubordination and making a adverse paintings order.
In its choice, the court docket stated, “Although she had strong sales numbers and was a good salesperson in many respects, throughout her tenure (with Hoffman Honda) she demonstrated what colleagues and customers described as a ‘poor attitude’ and rudeness.” It cited her six written ultimatum and three-day suspense for “substandard work, conduct, attitude and carelessness” then consumers complained.
Hoffman Honda rented Janetta Marrero in 2010 and fired her in 2018 then a couple of ultimatum about her rudeness and needful angle, in keeping with the verdict, which famous the collect’s long paper path documenting her conduct.
Dealership lawyer Carolyn Trotta of Hartford, Conn., stated: “Hoffman Auto Group’s meticulous approach to record-keeping and its commitment to proactive anti-discrimination policies serve as ‘best practices’ in this area of the law.
“Via conserving correct, thorough data, sellers can give protection to themselves from prison disputes and safeguard compliance with prison requirements,” Trotta said.
Marrero was the store’s only female service adviser at the time of termination, and the dealership hired a woman to replace her, according to court filings.
The day before her termination, her supervisor called her into his office to discuss her sales numbers and customer service. During the meeting, Marrero allegedly told the supervisor, “You don’t have anything on me,” criticized his management, raised the fact she was pregnant and refused to leave the office for about an hour after being asked to do so, the court said.
A lower court judge dismissed the case without a trial.
In a unanimous July 25 ruling, the appellate court agreed with the dealership that Marrero failed to present sufficient evidence to support her gender bias claim. The fact that the supervisor went out for drinks with her male colleagues wasn’t proof of an intention to discriminate based on gender, it said.
The court also said Hoffman Honda offered evidence — including performance reviews and testimony — that Marrero’s behavior provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to fire her.
“Doing some task tasks neatly isn’t proof that termination for alternative task deficiencies was once a pretext for discrimination,” the court said.
Marrero’s attorney didn’t reply to demands of remark.