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

3,277 chars

strike as to the prayer for relief regarding punitive dam-
ages. The court took no action as to count six given
the plaintiff’s representation in his memorandum in
opposition to the motion to strike that he would with-
draw that count.
As to count one of the plaintiff’s complaint, alleging
a violation of § 1983,6 the court concluded that the plain-
tiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that (1)
the defendant’s policies, practices, or customs led to a
violation of his constitutional rights, as required for
municipal liability, and (2) his deposition testimony was
speech on a matter of public concern, as required for
protection under the first amendment.7 As to counts
two and three of the plaintiff’s complaint, alleging viola-
tions of § 31-51q,8 the court concluded that the plaintiff
6
‘‘A first amendment retaliation claim under § 1983 requires that a [plain-
tiff] establish three elements: (1) that the speech or conduct at issue was
protected, (2) that the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff,
and (3) that there was a causal connection between the protected speech
and the adverse action.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jolley v. Vinton,
196 Conn. App. 379, 384, 229 A.3d 1198 (2020). In addition, ‘‘[p]laintiffs who
seek to impose liability on local governments under § 1983 must prove that
action pursuant to official municipal policy caused their injury.’’ (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Edgewood Street Garden Apartments, LLC v.
Hartford, 163 Conn. App. 219, 231, 135 A.3d 54, cert. denied, 321 Conn. 903,
136 A.3d 642 (2016).
7
In its memorandum of decision, the court set forth two ways in which
the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that his speech was constitutionally
protected under the federal constitution. The court first explained that,
although the plaintiff relied on Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228, 134 S. Ct. 2369,
189 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2014), which held that the first amendment protects
a public employee who provides truthful sworn testimony, compelled by
subpoena, outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities; id., 238;
the plaintiff failed to allege that his deposition testimony was compelled by
subpoena. The court also reasoned that the plaintiff failed to allege that he
provided testimony on a matter of public concern rather than the personal
grievance of another employee, such as evidence necessary for the adminis-
tration of justice or a complaint of discrimination connected to a broader
policy or practice of systemic discrimination.
8
General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 31-51q provides in relevant part: ‘‘Any
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
Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text