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

2,403 chars

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 reason-
          able attorney’s fees as part of the costs of any such
          action for damages. . . .’’
             To determine whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged
          that his deposition testimony was constitutionally pro-
          tected, which is ‘‘[a] clear prerequisite to the application
          of § 31-51q’’; Schumann v. Dianon Systems, Inc., 304
          Conn. 585, 600, 43 A.3d 111 (2012); we first turn to
          the applicable constitutional principles governing the
          protected status of employee speech under the federal
          constitution. In the public employment setting, ‘‘employ-
          ees must generally by necessity . . . accept certain
          limitations on their [f]irst [a]mendment freedoms
          because, as government insiders, their speech can con-
          travene governmental policies or impair the proper per-
          formance of governmental functions. . . . Still, a pub-
          lic employee does not relinquish all [f]irst [a]mendment
          rights otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by reason of
          his or her employment.’’ (Citations omitted; internal
          quotation marks omitted.) Heim v. Daniel, 81 F.4th
          212, 223 (2d Cir. 2023); see also Schumann v. Dianon
          Systems, Inc., supra, 601 (‘‘it is well established that a
          . . . government may not compel individuals to relin-
          quish their first amendment rights as a condition to
          obtaining government employment’’ (internal quotation
          marks omitted)).
            ‘‘In Pickering v. Board of Education, [391 U.S. 563,
          568, 88 S. Ct. 1731, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1968)] . . . the
          [United States Supreme Court] . . . set forth a general
          principle governing the constitutionality of government
          restrictions on the speech of its employees: in evaluat-
          ing the constitutionality of government restrictions on
          an employee’s speech, a court must arrive at a balance
          between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen,
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 15

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text