Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)

Citation: Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Parent Document: Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2022-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10278647/dorfman-v-smith/ ↗

Full Text

2,556 chars

ceeding, like a claim of vexatious litigation or abuse of
          process. Additionally, claims regarding good faith and
          fair dealing are distinguishable from other claims that
          the litigation privilege does not bar. Specifically, in
          MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, supra, 310 Conn. 631, we
          held that the litigation privilege does not apply to claims
          alleging a violation of General Statutes § 31-290a, which
          prohibits retaliation against employees for exercising
          their rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act (act),
          General Statutes § 31-275 et seq. We emphasized in
          MacDermid, Inc., that, like claims for vexatious litiga-
          tion and abuse of process, which explicitly hold an
          individual liable for the use of the judicial process for
          an illegitimate purpose, ‘‘§ 31-290a is designed to pre-
          vent, or hold the employer liable for, the improper use
          of the judicial process for the illegitimate purpose of
          retaliating against an employee for his exercise of his
          rights under the act. The illegitimate use of litigation
          in such a retaliatory manner subverts the purpose of
          the judicial system and, as a matter of public policy,
          we will not encourage such conduct by affording it
          the protection of absolute immunity.’’ Id. The plaintiff’s
          claim in the present case for breach of the covenant of
          good faith and fair dealing is distinguishable from the
          claim raised in MacDermid, Inc., in that it is not
          designed to hold an individual liable for the improper
          use of the judicial system but, rather, is designed to hold
          an individual liable for improper conduct in fulfilling
          contractual obligations.
             The fact that the misconduct at issue allegedly
          affected the underlying judicial proceeding does not
          alter our analysis. Although the plaintiff’s complaint
          contains allegations that the defendant, through its liti-
          gation conduct, improperly used and abused the judicial
          process, unless the plaintiff’s cause of action challenges
          the purpose of the litigation or litigation procedure,
          these allegations do not suffice to establish an improper
          use of the judicial system. A claim of abuse of process
March 29, 2022                 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 63

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text