CT · jury_instructions
Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.14-6
Retaliatory Discharge in Violation of General Statutes § 31-290a
We have a statute that provides: “(a) No employer who is subject to the provisions of this chapter
shall discharge, or cause to be discharged, or in any manner discriminate against any employee
because the employee has filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits or otherwise
exercised the rights afforded to him pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.” The plaintiff has
alleged that the defendant (terminated (his/her) employment/discriminated against (him/her)) in
violation of the statute.
In order to prevail on (his/her) claim, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that ((his/her) discharge/the adverse employment action) was due to intentional discrimination
based on (his/her) filing a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Intentional discrimination
is proved in this case if the plaintiff demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that
(his/her) filing a workers’ compensation claim was a motivating factor for ((his/her)
discharge/the adverse employment action) even though other factors also motivated the
defendant’s decision to (discharge/take the adverse action) against (him/her). A “motivating
factor” is a factor that made a difference in the defendant’s decision.
The plaintiff does not have to prove that the filing of a workers’ compensation claim was the sole
or even the principal reason for the decision, as long as (he/she) proves that it was a
determinative influence in the decision. (He/She) may prove intentional discrimination directly
by proving that (his/her) filing the workers’ compensation claim motivated the defendant’s
action (in discharging (him/her)/taking the adverse employment action) or indirectly by proving
that the reason(s) given by the defendant for the discharge (was/were) unworthy of belief. If you
find that the defendant’s stated reason(s) are not credible, then considering all the circumstances
you may infer, although you are not required to infer, that the filing of the workers’
compensation claim was a motivating factor in the defendant’s decision, even if it may not have
been the only motivating factor.
It is not your role to second-guess the defendant’s business judgment. Even if the defendant’s
decision was incorrect, unfair, unwise, capricious, or based on personal favoritism or animosity,
the plaintiff may prevail only if (he/she) proves that the filing of the workers’ compensation
claim was a motivating factor that made a difference in the defendant’s decision.
Provenance
- Source
- jud.ct.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-23
- Edition
- 2026-08-23
- Content hash
00e478b0c23491787fc7ea5b8d88829c41729e45f59d7cd29a64b59721fe90a6
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.