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

2,599 chars

The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s reliance on
Konits is misplaced given that it predated Garcetti and
Garcetti’s requirement that public employees must be
speaking ‘‘as citizens,’’ rather than as employees in the
course of performing their job duties, to be entitled to
protection under the federal constitution. Garcetti v.
Ceballos, supra, 547 U.S. 421. We are not persuaded.16
Unlike the plaintiff in Garcetti, whose speech was made
in the context of a memorandum that he had written
because it was ‘‘part of what he . . . was employed to
do,’’ there is nothing to indicate that the plaintiff in
Konits, a public school teacher, would have been ‘‘mak-
[ing] statements pursuant to [her] official duties’’; id.,
421; by providing testimony in a fellow employee’s dis-
crimination action. See Konits v. Valley Stream Central
High School District, supra, 394 F.3d 124–25. Thus,
there is nothing to suggest that the holding in Garcetti
would have affected the outcome of Konits. Indeed,
even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti,
the Second Circuit has continued to cite Konits without
indicating that Garcetti overruled that decision or oth-
erwise affected its holding. See Quinones v. Bingham-
ton, 997 F.3d 461, 467 n.3 (2d Cir. 2021) (citing Konits
for proposition that ‘‘[t]here is law that any use of state
authority to retaliate against those who speak out
against discrimination suffered by others, including wit-
nesses or potential witnesses in proceedings addressing
discrimination claims, can give rise to a cause of action
under [§ 1983] and the [f]irst [a]mendment’’ (internal
quotation marks omitted)); see also Colvin v. Keen, 900
F.3d 63, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (distinguishing Konits on
basis that plaintiff was advising coworker of her consti-
tutional rights, not speaking out against any perceived
16
We also note that the defendant has failed to explain why the holding
in Konits would not continue to provide helpful guidance in our consider-
ation of the plaintiff’s claim under the state constitution, regardless of the
decision in Garcetti, given that our Supreme Court rejected the standard
set forth in Garcetti. See Trusz v. UBS Realty Investors, LLC, supra, 319
Conn. 191, 210.
Page 24 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text