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

2,327 chars

U.S. 421 (when public employees ‘‘make statements
pursuant to their official duties,’’ employees are not
‘‘speaking as citizens’’ as required for protection under
first amendment); Trusz v. UBS Realty Investors, LLC,
supra, 319 Conn. 210 (modified Pickering/Connick test
applies under speech provisions of Connecticut consti-
tution ‘‘when the employee is speaking pursuant to his
or her official duties’’).
The defendant suggests, to the contrary, that the
plaintiff failed to allege that he was testifying outside
the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities, and, there-
fore, (1) the allegations were legally insufficient to dem-
onstrate that the plaintiff was ‘‘speak[ing] as a citizen’’
pursuant to Garcetti v. Ceballos, supra, 547 U.S. 423,
and (2) the plaintiff was required to further allege that
his testimony ‘‘implicate[d] [his] employer’s official dis-
honesty . . . other serious wrongdoing, or threats to
health and safety’’ pursuant to Trusz v. UBS Realty
Investors, LLC, supra, 319 Conn. 212, which he also
failed to do. The defendant specifically contends that
‘‘[i]t is reasonable to infer from the pleadings that as a
police lieutenant, a routine and ordinary part of [the
plaintiff’s] job responsibilities include providing truth-
ful sworn testimony in judicial proceedings.’’ We dis-
agree.
Although testifying in criminal proceedings and cer-
tain civil proceedings may be a part of the tasks that
the plaintiff was paid to perform, there are no factual
allegations to indicate that providing deposition testi-
mony in the context of a fellow employee’s discrimina-
tion proceeding was part of what the plaintiff, as a
police officer, was employed to do. See Garcetti v.
Ceballos, supra, 547 U.S. 421–22. Indeed, even if the
plaintiff’s allegations suggest that his speech related to
information he had obtained during the course of his
employment, the concerns addressed in Garcetti and
Trusz do not arise. See Trusz v. UBS Realty Investors,
Page 18 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text