*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
DREY ANDRADE v. LEGO SYSTEMS, INC.

(AC 41322)

Lavine, Moll and Bear, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant for alleged employment discrimination after the defendant terminated his employment,

claiming that the defendant had discriminated against him on the basis

of his sexual orientation in violation of statute (§ 46a-60 [a] [1]). The

trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and

rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this

court. He claimed that the trial court improperly determined that there

was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude

that the circumstances surrounding the termination of his employment

could give rise to an inference of discrimination on the basis of his

sexual orientation. Held that trial court properly rendered summary

judgment in favor of the defendant; that court’s memorandum of decision

thoroughly addressed the claim and arguments raised in this appeal,

and this court adopted the trial court’s well reasoned decision as a

proper statement of the facts and applicable law on the issues.

Argued February 7—officially released March 19, 2019

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for alleged employment

discrimination, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the

court, Bright, J., granted the defendant’s motion for

summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon,

from which the plaintiff appealed to this court.

Affirmed.

James V. Sabatini, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Victoria Woodin Chavey, with whom was Collin

O’Connor Udell, for the appellee (defendant).

Scott Madeo filed a brief for the Commission on

Human Rights and Opportunities as amicus curiae.
Opinion

PER CURIAM. In this employment discrimination

action, the plaintiff, Drey Andrade, appeals from the

summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor

of the defendant, Lego Systems, Inc. On appeal, the

plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that there was insufficient evidence from which

a reasonable jury could conclude that the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s termination of the

plaintiff’s employment could give rise to an inference

of discrimination on the basis of his sexual orientation.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record and the trial court’s opinion reveal the

following relevant facts and procedural history. The

plaintiff was employed by the defendant on or about

October 12, 2009, as Distribution Operations Manager

CED. In that position, the plaintiff reported to the defendant’s Director of Distribution, Americas (director). In

his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he is a homosexual and that the defendant was aware of his sexual

orientation. He further alleged that the director treated

him in an adversely different manner than she treated

other employees who reported directly to her. During

a performance review in September, 2010, the director

informed the plaintiff that his performance with respect

to his communication skills, collaboration, and trust

building with his manager and employees whom he

supervised was deficient, and that he needed to

improve. She provided him with a performance plan. In

subsequent performance reviews, the director informed

the plaintiff of her continuing concerns regarding his

job performance and once offered to transfer him to

another position where he could apply his operational

strengths, but would be free from managing other

employees. The plaintiff addressed some of his deficient

performance issues, but concerns remained. The plaintiff was again placed on a performance plan, which he

did not satisfactorily address. The defendant terminated

the plaintiff’s employment on May 9, 2013.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant on August 22, 2014, alleging that the defendant

discriminated against him on the basis of his sexual

orientation in violation of General Statutes § 46a-60 (a)

(1). After the pleadings were closed, the defendant filed

a motion for summary judgment, claiming that judgment should be rendered in its favor because the plaintiff had failed to present evidence from which a rational

fact finder could infer that the defendant terminated

his employment on the basis of his sexual orientation.

On January 26, 2018, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff

appealed.

On the basis of our review of the record, the briefs,

and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the
judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because

the court’s memorandum of decision thoroughly

addresses the claim and arguments raised in this appeal,

we adopt its well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues.

See Andrade v. Lego Systems, Inc., Superior Court,

judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-14-6053523-

S (January 26, 2018) (reprinted at 188 Conn. App. ,

A.3d ). It would serve no useful purpose for this

court to engage in any further discussion. See, e.g.,

Samakaab v. Dept. of Social Services, 178 Conn. App.

52, 54, 173 A.3d 1004 (2017); see also Woodruff v.

Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010).

The judgment is affirmed.