Court Rules Maintenance Decisions Discretionary in Doe v. Fasold

Governmental Immunity / School Premises & Sexual Privacy Claims

Appellate Court upholds summary judgment for town on negligence and negligent supervision claims arising from secret locker-room recordings

Seven plaintiffs (three adults and four minors) connected with the Plainville Blue Dolphins swim club and Plainville High School lifeguard staff sued the Town of Plainville after a parent volunteer, Kyle Fasold, was discovered to have secretly recorded them through a window from a recreation staff locker room into the girls’ locker room during use of the school’s aquatic facilities between 2017 and 2020. The Town moved for summary judgment on the negligence and negligent supervision counts, invoking governmental immunity under General Statutes § 52-557n and arguing that decisions about inspection, maintenance, and repair of the locker-room window were discretionary acts. The plaintiffs claimed a February 2018 work order—requesting that custodial staff “cut and fit” colored or textured plexiglass into the window—turned the town’s duty into a ministerial obligation performed in a prescribed, non-discretionary way, thereby abrogating immunity. The Appellate Court, applying settled distinctions between discretionary and ministerial duties and relying on precedents such as DiMiceli v. Cheshire, Northrup v. Witkowski, Doe v. Madison, and Borelli v. Renaldi, held that the work order was merely evidence of officials exercising day-to-day judgment in handling maintenance issues, not “a mandate of legal authority,” and agreed with the trial court that it “reflected the discretionary nature of the defendant’s duties with respect to inspection, maintenance and repairs, not the existence of a ministerial duty,” concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact “as to the nature of the defendant’s duty” and affirming summary judgment for the Town on its governmental-immunity defense. Doe v. Fasold, 234 Conn. App. 299 (2025).