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

2,474 chars

Our state constitution, however, provides broader
          protection than its federal counterpart in this context.
          See Trusz v. UBS Realty Investors, LLC, 319 Conn. 175,
          191–210, 123 A.3d 1212 (2015). In Trusz, our Supreme
          Court concluded that the state constitution ‘‘incorpo-
          rates a slightly modified form of the Pickering/Connick
          test’’; id., 191; and that the Garcetti standard does not
          apply to claims arising under the state constitution. Id.,
          210. The court determined that ‘‘[the] modified Picker-
          ing/Connick balancing test [set forth in Justice Souter’s
          dissenting opinion in Garcetti], which recognizes both
          the state constitutional principle that speech on all sub-
          jects should be protected to the maximum extent possi-
          ble and the important interests of an employer in con-
          trolling its own message and preserving workplace
          discipline, harmony and efficiency, provides the proper
          test for determining the scope of a public employee’s
          rights under the free speech provisions of the state
          constitution when the employee is speaking pursuant
          to his or her official duties.’’ (Emphasis in original.)
          Id. Under this standard, ‘‘if an employee’s job related
          speech reflects a mere policy difference with the
          employer, it is not protected. It is only when the employ-
          ee’s speech is on a matter of public concern and impli-
          cates an employer’s official dishonesty . . . other seri-
          ous wrongdoing, or threats to health and safety . . .
          that the speech trumps the employer’s right to control
          its own employees and policies.’’ (Citation omitted;
          internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 212.
             In the present case, we initially note that the allega-
          tions set forth in the operative complaint, when con-
          strued in the manner most favorable to sustaining its
          legal sufficiency, were sufficient to demonstrate that
          the plaintiff was not making a statement pursuant to his
          official duties. Accordingly, the differing legal standards
          set forth in Garcetti and Trusz are not implicated in
          the present case. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, supra, 547
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 17

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text