an individual supervisor. Accordingly, Counts One and Two alleging sexual harassment and retaliation against Deegan must be dismissed. Count Three — Individual Liability Under CFEPA Deegan similarly seeks to dismiss Count Three against him personally on the ground that there is no individual supervisory liability under CFEPA. The Connecticut appellate courts have yet to rule on the question whether supervisory employees can be held individually liable under CFEPA. There is also disagreement among the lower Connecticut courts that have considered the issue. See Wasik v. Stevens Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., No. Civ. 3:98cv108S(DJS), 2000 WL 306048 (D.Conn. Mar. 20, 2000), comparing Le v. Connecticut Dept. of Transportation, No. CV980491121S, 1999 WL 619631, at *3 (Conn.Super.Ct. Aug. 4,1999) (<HOLDING>); Nwachukwu v. State of Connecticut Department
holding that supervisory employee is not an employer under the terms of cfepa and because the employer is liable for the employees actions a plaintiff may not maintain an action against the employee individually under conngenstat  46a60 holding that employer may be held liable under  1981 for discrimination by supervisory employee holding that an employer alone is liable for a violation of title vii by supervisory employees recognizing that an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action holding that whether an employee decides to assist the charging party or refuses to assist the  employer the employer may not retaliate against the employee because this decision of the employee constitutes participation in an investigation or proceeding under title vii