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

2,529 chars

LLC, supra, 319 Conn. 212 (‘‘even under Garcetti, an
          employee’s speech outside the workplace about the
          employee’s job related duties . . . is protected, as long
          as the speech involves a matter of public concern’’
          (emphasis omitted)); see also Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S.
          228, 238, 134 S. Ct. 2369, 189 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2014) (‘‘Truth-
          ful testimony under oath by a public employee outside
          the scope of his ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen
          for [f]irst [a]mendment purposes. That is so even when
          the testimony relates to his public employment or con-
          cerns information learned during that employment.’’).12
            Nevertheless, as set forth previously, the plaintiff’s
          speech must have addressed a matter of public concern
          to be entitled to protection under both the federal and
          state constitutions. See Trusz v. UBS Realty Investors,
          LLC, supra, 319 Conn. 212; Schumann v. Dianon Sys-
          tems, Inc., supra, 304 Conn. 602. ‘‘Whether an employ-
          ee’s speech addresses a matter of public concern must
          be determined by the content, form, and context of
          a given statement, as revealed by the whole record.’’
          Connick v. Myers, supra, 461 U.S. 147–48. ‘‘An employ-
          ee’s speech addresses a matter of public concern when
          the speech can be fairly considered as relating to any
          matter of political, social, or other concern to the com-
          munity . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
          Schumann v. Dianon Systems, Inc., supra, 602.
             We conclude that the allegations set forth in the oper-
          ative complaint in the present case were sufficient to
          establish that the plaintiff’s speech was on the topic of
          racial discrimination against a fellow employee, which
          is a matter of public concern.
             12
                In Lane, it was undisputed that the plaintiff’s ordinary job responsibili-
          ties did not include testifying in court proceedings, and, therefore, the United
          States Supreme Court did not need to address whether truthful sworn testi-
          mony would constitute citizen speech under Garcetti when given as part
          of a public employee’s ordinary job duties. See Lane v. Franks, supra, 573
          U.S. 238 n.4.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 19

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text