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

3,099 chars

most favorable to sustaining the legal sufficiency of
the complaint. See A.C. Consulting, LLC v. Alexion
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., supra, 194 Conn. App. 325.13 In
addition, in the context of our review of the plaintiff’s
§ 31-51q claim under the state constitution, as set forth
in count three of the operative complaint, we are also
cognizant of ‘‘the state constitutional principle that
speech on all subjects should be protected to the maxi-
mum extent possible . . . .’’ (Emphasis in original.)
Trusz v. UBS Realty Investors, LLC, supra, 319
Conn. 210.
In reaching our conclusion, we are guided by the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit in Konits v. Valley Stream Central High
School District, 394 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2005), on which
the plaintiff relies.14 In Konits, the Second Circuit held
that ‘‘any use of state authority to retaliate against those
who speak out against discrimination suffered by oth-
ers, including witnesses or potential witnesses in pro-
ceedings addressing discrimination claims, can give rise
13
As noted previously, we also must take the facts alleged in the complaint
as true, given that the issue was raised in the context of a motion to strike.
See footnote 2 of this opinion. If the evidence ultimately produced by the
plaintiff demonstrates that his deposition testimony did not support the
discrimination claims made by Cruz, the defendant will have the opportunity
to file a motion for summary judgment, which is often the procedural vehicle
by which parties challenge whether speech is constitutionally protected in
this context. See, e.g., Lane v. Franks, supra, 573 U.S. 234; Garcetti v.
Ceballos, supra, 547 U.S. 415; Konits v. Valley Stream Central High School
District, 394 F.3d 121, 124 (2d Cir. 2005).
14
The plaintiff also relies on the decision of the Superior Court in Thomas
v. Guyette, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S, 2006 WL 2556506 (Conn. Super.
August 11, 2006), vacated in part on other grounds, Docket No. CV-03-
0081427-S, 2006 WL 3042074 (Conn. Super. October 13, 2006). Thomas is
distinguishable from the present case insofar as the parties in Thomas did
not dispute the content of the plaintiff’s speech, and the court, considering
a motion for summary judgment, had before it evidence of the plaintiff’s
specific statements. Id., *3–4. Nevertheless, the decision in Thomas supports
the general proposition underlying the plaintiff’s argument, that speech
‘‘directed at the ethnically discriminatory treatment of another employee’’
addresses a matter of public concern. Id., *4.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 21

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text