Connecticut District Court decision, Goodwine v. DCF

Goodwine made her complaint, Mr. Bendig was put on administrative leave, and then, followingan investigation and Loudermill hearing, Mr. Bendig was suspended without pay for five days.By contrast, according to Ms. Goodwine, "after Mr. Mattera harassed a white woman,[KM], at CJTS in 2002, he was removed from the school to the Central Office, and . . . after heharassed a white woman, [JS], at Central Office he was transferred back to CJTS." 6Mem. inOpp'n [doc. # 99-10] at 11. Ms. Goodwine also claims that when "[PD], a white woman,complained she was afraid of [JM], a white male teacher," JM "was transferred . . . to anotherDCF facility." Id. at 22.The basis for Ms. Goodwine's statements regarding PD and JM is Ms. Goodwine's owngeneral second-hand knowledge of that incident and the conclusory assertions of Mr. Cardillo,her co-Plaintiff, in his affidavit. See Goodwine Dep. [doc. # 86-21] at 68:23-71:4; Cardillo Aff.[doc. # 99-1] 15. In his affidavit, Mr. Cardillo merely states that "[PD], a white woman,complained that she was afraid of [JM], a white male teacher" and "[JM] was transferred fromCJTS to another DCF facility." Cardillo Aff. [doc. # 99-1] 15. At her deposition, Ms.Goodwine stated several times that she was "not sure exactly what happened" to PD and that shedid not "know all the details of that incident." Goodwine Dep. [doc. # 86-21] at 68:25-69:2,69:8-10, 69:18-22, 70:3-4, 71:2-4. Beyond Ms. Goodwine's testimony at her deposition that sheheard that "[a] complaint was made" having "to do with [PD] being harassed by [JM]" which ledto JM being "no longer . . . there," the record contains no evidence of the particulars of the PD-JM incident. See id. at 70:8-71:3.Ms. Goodwine's claims regarding the results of harassment complaints against Mr.Mattera are based solely on the unsupported statements of Mr. Cardillo. See Mem. in Opp'n6The Court refers to the non-party alleged victims and harasser by their initials.13