Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)

Citation: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Parent Document: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131855/michel-v-hartford/ ↗

Full Text

3,161 chars

Pursuant to statute ((Rev. to 2019) § 31-51q), ‘‘[a]ny employer . . . who
subjects any employee to discipline or discharge on account of the
exercise by such employee of rights guaranteed by the first amendment
to the United States Constitution or section 3, 4 or 14 of article first of the
Constitution of the state, provided such activity does not substantially
or materially interfere with the employee’s bona fide job performance
or the working relationship between the employee and the employer,
shall be liable to such employee for damages caused by such discipline
or discharge . . . .’’
The plaintiff appealed to this court from the judgment rendered for the
defendant city on his claims for free speech retaliation under § 31-51q
and the federal statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983). The plaintiff, an employee of
the defendant’s police department, reported to his commander that C,
a fellow employee, had complained to him that he was being subjected
to discriminatory treatment on the basis of his race. The commander
ordered the plaintiff not to get involved and assured the plaintiff that
he would take care of C’s complaint. C subsequently told the plaintiff
that the commander stated that he was unable to help with C’s complaint.
C, on the advice of the plaintiff, reported his complaint to the police
union and to the department’s internal affairs division and openly
acknowledged that the plaintiff had suggested that he do so. C also filed
a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
(CHRO) alleging that he was the subject of unlawful racial discrimina-
tion. The plaintiff supported C’s filing of the complaint and attempted
to protect him from further discrimination and retaliation within the
department. Subsequently, the plaintiff was, inter alia, removed from
certain supervisory positions, removed from certain assignments that
would result in the receipt of overtime compensation, and assigned to
allegedly inconvenient shifts after he returned from paternity leave. The
plaintiff testified in support of C at a deposition in connection with C’s
CHRO complaint, and, after providing such testimony, the plaintiff was
not selected to become the new commander of his unit. The plaintiff
later testified favorably for C and against the defendant at a second
deposition. Thereafter, the plaintiff was, inter alia, assigned to unfavor-
able shifts and was not selected for certain new positions. The trial
court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s operative
complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had not sufficiently pleaded
the claims of retaliation. Held:
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text