Pepe v. Pratt & Whitney

Opinions

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of 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 Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the 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 an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************ Pepe v. Pratt & Whitney

ANDREA PEPE v. PRATT & WHITNEY, A DIVISION OF RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (AC 48714) Alvord, Moll and Palmer, Js.

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment rendered following its grant of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on her complaint alleging that the defendant violated the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-60 (b) (1)) when it failed to hire her on the basis of her gender. The plaintiff claimed that the court improperly granted the defen- dant’s motion for summary judgment. Held:

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, as the court properly resolved the issues raised in this appeal, and this court adopted the trial court’s thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision as a proper statement of the relevant facts and applicable law on the issues.

Argued April 14—officially released August 25, 2026

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for, inter alia, alleged employment discrimination, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Chavey, J., granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Shana L. Dowty, with whom, on the brief, was James V. Sabatini, for the appellant (plaintiff). Nicole C. Chomiak, with whom, on the brief, was Anthony S. Califano, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Andrea Pepe, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Pratt & Whitney, a division of Raytheon Technologies Corporation (now known as RTX Corporation). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that Pepe v. Pratt & Whitney

the court improperly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to her complaint alleging gender discrimination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. In July 2023, the plaintiff commenced the present action alleging, in a one count complaint, that the defen- dant had violated the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-60 (b) (1), when it failed to hire her on the basis of her gender. The defen- dant filed an answer and special defenses. In December 2024, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by a supporting memo- randum of law and appended exhibits. In March 2025, the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment with appended exhibits. The defendant thereafter filed a reply. On April 15, 2025, the court, Chavey, J., granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed. Our examination of the record on appeal and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the trial court’s memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in the present appeal, we adopt its concise and well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the relevant facts and the applicable law on the issues. See Pepe v. Pratt & Whitney, Superior Court, judicial dis- trict of Hartford, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (April 15, 2025) (reprinted at 241 Conn. App. 236, , A.3d ). It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussions contained therein. See, e.g., D’Attilo v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 329 Conn. 624, 632, 188 A.3d 727 (2018); Poce v. O & G Industries, Inc., 210 Conn. App. 82, 85, 269 A.3d 899, cert. denied, 342 Conn. 910, 271 A.3d 663 (2022). The judgment is affirmed.