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

1,143 chars

In the present case, it may reasonably be inferred
          from the allegations set forth in the operative complaint
          that the plaintiff here, like the plaintiff in Konits, was
          ‘‘speak[ing] out against’’ discrimination in his testi-
          mony, or that his testimony ‘‘regard[ed] the existence
          of discrimination in the workplace . . . .’’ Id. Although
          the plaintiff failed to include allegations concerning the
          precise content of his testimony, or what he ‘‘actually
          said,’’ as the defendant argues, the holding in Konits
          did not turn on the specifics of the plaintiff’s proposed
          testimony. See id., 125–26. Instead, the general content
          of the plaintiff’s proposed testimony in Konits—and
          its ‘‘ ‘broader public purpose’ ’’ of assisting a fellow
          employee to redress her claim of gender discrimina-
          tion—was inferred from the plaintiff simply being iden-
          tified as a witness in the discrimination action. See id.
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 23

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text