Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Vanessa L. Bryant, Judge, dismissing, on summary judgment, plaintiff’s action against defendant Town of East Haven (“Town”) alleging age discrimination in the termination of her employment, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§621-634, and state law. The district court granted summary judgment on the sole ground that plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case of any adverse employment action, because she chose to retire rather than attend a scheduled disciplinary hearing — the only merits-based challenge presented in the Town’s summary judgment motion. See Green v. East Haven Police Dep’t, 3:16-cv-00321, 2017 WL 6498144 (D. Conn. Dec. 19, 2017). On appeal, plaintiff contends that the court erred in failing to view her evidence that the retirement was not voluntary but was coerced by the threat of likely termination — and hence constituted a constructive discharge — in the light most favorable to her. We agree that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, sufficed to present genuine issues of fact as to whether a reasonable person in plaintiff’s shoes would have felt compelled to retire. We thus vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. Vacated and remanded. AMALYA KEARSE, C.J. Plaintiff Dyanna L. Green appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Vanessa L. Bryant, Judge, dismissing her action against defendant Town of East Haven (“Town”) for alleged age discrimination in terminating her employment, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§621-634 (“ADEA”), and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §46a-60 et seq. (“CFEPA”). The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the action on the sole ground that Green had failed to make out a prima facie case of any adverse employment action, because she chose to retire rather than attend a scheduled disciplinary hearing — the only merits-based challenge presented in the Town’s summary judgment motion. On appeal, Green contends that the court erred in failing to view her evidence that the retirement was not voluntary but was coerced by the threat of likely termination — and hence constituted a constructive discharge — in the light most favorable to her. We agree that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Green, sufficed to present genuine issues of fact as to whether a reasonable person in Green’s shoes would have felt compelled to retire. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND Many of the following facts are undisputed, as indicated by the parties’ statements submitted pursuant to Local Rule 56(a) as to undisputed and disputed material facts (“Rule 56(a) Statements”). Other descriptions are, as indicated, principally taken from the deposition testimony of the Town’s Internal Affairs (or “I.A.”) Officer James Naccarato or from the affidavit submitted by Green in opposition to the Town’s motion for summary judgment. A. Green’s Employment at East Haven Police Department From about May 2001 through December 2014, Green was an employee of the Town, working at defendant East Haven Police Department (“EHPD” or “Department”). She was one of two full-time employees in EHPD’s records division, responsible for processing arrest and accident reports, typing search and arrest warrants, typing misdemeanor and infraction tickets, and entering data into EHPD’s computer system. In 2012, EHPD Lieutenant David Emerman became supervisor of the records division. (See Rule 56(a) Statements, undisputed
1-3; see also id. undisputed 27.) Also in 2012, Jennifer Ward was hired to work in the records division, replacing Green’s recently retired coworker. (See id. undisputed 6.) Green, 47 years of age when she was hired, was 58 in 2012 (see Affidavit of Dyanna L. Green dated September 6, 2017 (“Green Aff.” or “September 2017 Affidavit”),
