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

2,586 chars

discrimination or official misconduct); Kercado-
          Clymer v. Amsterdam, 370 Fed. Appx. 238, 243 (2d
          Cir. 2010) (citing Konits in support of conclusion that
          plaintiff’s conversation with city attorney about her own
          and others’ complaints of sex discrimination was
          speech addressing matter of public concern). The fed-
          eral district courts within the Second Circuit, including
          the United States District Court for the District of Con-
          necticut, also have continued to rely on Konits. See,
          e.g., Barone v. Judicial Branch Connecticut, Docket
          No. 3:17-cv-00644 (VAB), 2018 WL 1368906, *9 (D. Conn.
          March 16, 2018); Fairchild v. Quinnipiac University,
          16 F. Supp. 3d 89, 94 (D. Conn. 2014). Accordingly, we
          are not convinced that Garcetti overruled Konits or
          that it called into question the holding in Konits, and,
          therefore, we conclude that Konits remains good law
          and that it is persuasive in the present case.
             Moreover, the court’s observation in Konits that
          ‘‘speech is of particular public concern when it involves
          actual or potential testimony in court or in administra-
          tive procedures’’; Konits v. Valley Stream Central High
          School District, supra, 394 F.3d 125; was subsequently
          confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Lane
          v. Franks, supra, 573 U.S. 228. In Lane, the court held
          that ‘‘the [f]irst [a]mendment protects a public
          employee who provides truthful sworn testimony, com-
          pelled by subpoena, outside the scope of his ordinary
          job responsibilities.’’ Id., 238. The court concluded that
          the testimony at issue in that case was speech on a
          matter of public concern because ‘‘[t]he content of [the
          plaintiff’s] testimony—corruption in a public program
          and misuse of state funds—obviously involves a matter
          of significant public concern,’’ and ‘‘the form and con-
          text of the speech—sworn testimony in a judicial pro-
          ceeding—fortify that conclusion.’’ Id., 241. Although
          Lane is not directly on point,17 it lends support to our
            17
               Lane did not involve testimony in support of a fellow employee’s discrim-
          ination claim. Instead, the plaintiff’s testimony in that case took place in
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 25

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text