used to
evaluate the plaintiff’s continued employment. On May
19, 2008, the defendant gave the plaintiff an initial proba-
tionary performance evaluation, which rated the plain-
tiff’s overall performance as ‘‘fair,’’ partly on the basis
of poor ratings in the categories of human relations and
judgment. On or about October 3, 2008, the plaintiff
e-mailed the defendant’s human resources director to
notify the defendant of discriminatory and harassing
conduct that had been directed toward him. Subse-
quently, in a nine month evaluation dated October 16,
2008, the plaintiff received an overall job performance
rating of ‘‘unsatisfactory.’’ The plaintiff was terminated
from the defendant’s employ on October 22, 2008, prior
to the expiration of his probationary work period. On
December 26, 2008, the plaintiff filed a complaint with
the commission. The commission issued the plaintiff a
release of jurisdiction letter dated October 25, 2010.
  Thecourt made the following additional factual find-
ings. DeBrito was the plaintiff’s immediate supervisor
from May, 2007, until April, 2008. At the beginning of
the plaintiff’s employment, the plaintiff and DeBrito
were friendly, but DeBrito mimicked the plaintiff on
occasion. DeBrito completed a durational performance
assessment of the plaintiff, dated September 25, 2007,
covering the period from May 25, 2007, until September
25, 2007, which could be characterized as generally
favorable to the plaintiff.
  On October 25, 2007, DeBrito and her supervisor,
Robert Lapadula, met with the plaintiff and addressed
with him their concerns about his disrupting the work
place by being overly social. On December 7, 2007, the
plaintiff was appointed to a permanent social worker
position, to be effective on December 28, 2007, subject
to a ten month probationary period1 that was to expire
on October 27, 2008. A probationary period