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

2,938 chars

failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that (1) his
         deposition testimony was speech on a matter of public
         concern, as required for protection under both the fed-
         eral and state constitutions,9 and (2) his speech did
         not substantially or materially interfere with his job
         performance or the working relationship between him
         and his employer.
            The plaintiff did not replead, and the defendant filed
         a motion for judgment on June 6, 2022. The following
         day, on June 7, 2022, while the motion for judgment
         was still pending, the plaintiff filed an appeal from the
         court’s May 17, 2022 decision granting the defendant’s
         motion to strike. This court subsequently ordered the
         parties to file memoranda addressing whether the origi-
         nal appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
         because judgment had not been rendered on the
         stricken counts of the operative complaint and because
         count six of the complaint, which the plaintiff had repre-
         sented that he would withdraw, had not been with-
         drawn and therefore remained pending. On August 9,
         2022, the plaintiff filed with the trial court a withdrawal
         of count six of the operative complaint and, on August
         17, 2022, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion
         for judgment. This amended appeal followed.10
         first of the Constitution of the state, provided such activity does not substan-
         tially 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,
         including punitive damages, and for reasonable attorney’s fees as part of
         the costs of any such action for damages. . . .’’
            9
              In the context of the plaintiff’s § 31-51q claim under the federal constitu-
         tion, as set forth in count two, the court explained: ‘‘As discussed in connec-
         tion with the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim in count one, the plaintiff’s speech did
         not address a matter of public concern, but rather was intended to support
         and corroborate the personal grievances of another employee.’’ See footnote
         7 of this opinion. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s § 31-51q claim under
         the state constitution, as set forth in count three, failed for the same reason.
            10
               This court subsequently denied a motion to dismiss the original appeal
         that it had sua sponte filed on the same date as its order for supplemental
         memoranda. This court ordered that ‘‘the appeal as amended may proceed.’’
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 9

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text