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

2,232 chars

of his free speech rights pursuant to the first amend-
       ment to the United States constitution and article first,
       § 4, of the Connecticut constitution. Specifically, he
       contends that (1) he sufficiently pleaded facts that, if
       proven, would establish that his deposition testimony
       was constitutionally protected as speech on a matter
       of public concern, and (2) he was not required to allege
       facts to establish that his speech did not substantially
       or materially interfere with his job performance or the
       working relationship between him and his employer.
       We agree.
                                    A
          The plaintiff first contends that the allegations in the
       operative complaint were sufficient to establish that he
       provided testimony in support of a fellow employee’s
       race discrimination claim, which, he argues, is speech
       on a matter of public concern. The defendant responds
       that the operative complaint was devoid of any allega-
       tions as to what the plaintiff ‘‘actually said’’ in his depo-
       sition testimony and, therefore, the allegations were
       insufficient to establish speech on a matter of public
       concern. We agree with the plaintiff.
          ‘‘[Section] 31-51q provides a cause of action for dam-
       ages for an employee who has been disciplined or dis-
       charged on account of the exercise by such employee
       of various constitutional rights including the freedom
       of speech.’’ (Footnote omitted.) D’Angelo v. McGold-
       rick, 239 Conn. 356, 357, 685 A.2d 319 (1996). Specifi-
       cally, 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 first of the Constitution of
       the state, provided such activity does not substantially
       or materially interfere with the employee’s bona fide
Page 14                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text