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

2,882 chars

the plaintiff was, among other things, assigned to unfa-
       vorable shifts that resulted in significant hardship for
       his family; was not selected for certain new positions,
       including one that would have accommodated his fami-
       ly’s needs; and, when he followed his doctor’s advice
       to take a stress leave and to obtain treatment, was
       threatened with discipline.
          In October, 2020, the plaintiff commenced the present
       action against the defendant. On October 13, 2021, the
       plaintiff filed the operative complaint4 consisting of six
       counts: retaliation in violation of § 1983 for the exercise
       of his rights guaranteed by the first amendment to the
       United States constitution (count one); retaliation in
       violation of § 31-51q for the exercise of his first amend-
       ment rights (count two); retaliation in violation of § 31-
       51q for the exercise of his rights guaranteed by article
       first, §§ 4 and 5, of the Connecticut constitution (count
       three); breach of contract (count four); breach of the
       implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (count
       five); and intentional infliction of emotional distress
       testimony was provided at a second deposition, without specifying that the
       deposition testimony was provided in connection with a separate federal
       discrimination action that Cruz had filed. On appeal, the parties do not
       address these discrepancies. For purposes of reviewing the decision on the
       motion to strike, we focus our analysis on the allegations set forth in the
       plaintiff’s complaint. See A.C. Consulting, LLC v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals,
       Inc., 194 Conn. App. 316, 325, 220 A.3d 890 (2019) (purpose of motion to
       strike is to challenge legal sufficiency of allegations in complaint); see also
       Practice Book § 10-39 (a).
          4
            In the original complaint, the plaintiff alleged retaliation in violation of
       § 31-51q for the exercise of his rights guaranteed by article first, §§ 3, 4, and
       14, of the Connecticut constitution. The defendant filed a request to revise
       the original complaint, requesting that the plaintiff set forth the particular
       statements that he alleged he made that were protected under the state
       constitution. The plaintiff filed an objection to the request to revise, arguing
       that the information requested by the defendant should be obtained through
       discovery, and the court sustained that objection. The defendant subse-
       quently filed a motion to strike the original complaint, which the court
       marked off because the plaintiff indicated that he would file an amended
       complaint.
Page 6                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text