2007 Ct. Sup. 9714
No. CV05-4012161SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven
March 8, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR JUDGMENT
ROBERT I. BERDON, J.T.R.
Before the court is the defendants,’ Town of Guilford (Guilford), Thomas A. Terribile, Chief of Police of Guilford (Terribile), Jeff Hutchinson (Hutchinson) and Alberto Magriz (Magriz), police officer of the Town of Guilford, motion to enforce a settlement agreement.
The plaintiff Kelly Skorzewski brought this action against defendants seeking damages (compensatory and punitive), attorneys fees and a mandatory injunction requiring Guilford to employ her as a police dispatcher.
The plaintiff’s claims are based upon the following allegations. The plaintiff was conditionally hired in 2003 as a police dispatcher for the Guilford Police Department and she was informed that before she could start her employment it would be necessary for Magriz to conduct a home visit. She was also instructed that if she lived with anyone, her roommate would be required to be present.
Magriz appeared at the plaintiff’s residence on January 27, 2003, and instructed the plaintiff to leave the room while he questioned her female roommate. After questioning the plaintiff’s roommate, Magriz called the plaintiff back into the room and asked the plaintiff if she had “a significant other.” The plaintiff responded that she did, and Magriz then required the plaintiff to reveal the identity of the person. The plaintiff reluctantly revealed to Magriz that her “significant other” was her female roommate. The plaintiff was subsequently notified by Terribile she did not qualify for the position of police dispatcher.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) claiming that Guilford and the other defendants discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation. During the proceedings before the CHRO, the CT Page 9715 parties entered into settlement discussions. During such discussions, the defendants were represented by counsel and the plaintiff represented herself. The parties reached an agreement that the defendants would pay to the plaintiff as a complete settlement the sum of $3,500.00. Subsequently, before payment of the $3,500.00, the defendants insisted upon the plaintiff signing a statement that she was not employed for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.
Although, in this case, the parties agreed upon a settlement of $3,500.00, the court finds that the plaintiff never agreed that she sign a statement that would include a provision that the defendants had a nondiscriminatory reason for not employing her. Furthermore, she was repeatedly told that before she signed any documentation that she could consult with an attorney to review the documentation and she did.
“A trial court has the inherent power to enforce summarily a settlement agreement as a matter of law when the terms of the agreement are clean and unambiguous.” Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804, 811 (1993). The defendants, however, seek to enforce a settlement with terms to which the plaintiff never agreed.
This court could understand why the plaintiff would not want to give the defendants a clean slate. It has not been demonstrated that plaintiff’s sexual orientation is a relevant factor that the defendants could consider in her employment and it would be contrary to the public policy of this state. See General Statutes § 46a-81a, et seq.; § 46a-81
“Sexual orientation discrimination: Employment.”
The defendants’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement with an acknowledgment by the plaintiff that she was denied employment based on nondiscriminatory reasons is denied.
CT Page 9716