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

2,388 chars

tive complaint were insufficient to do so. We agree with
          the plaintiff.
             As set forth previously in this opinion, § 31-51q pro-
          vides that ‘‘[a]ny employer . . . who subjects any
          employee to discipline or discharge on account of the
          exercise by such employee of rights guaranteed by the
          first amendment to the United States Constitution or
          section 3, 4 or 14 of article first of the Constitution of
          the state, provided such activity does not substantially
          or materially interfere with the employee’s bona fide
          job performance or the working relationship between
          the employee and the employer, shall be liable to such
          employee for damages caused by such discipline or
          discharge . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) General Statutes
          (Rev. to 2019) § 31-51q.
             The issue of whether a plaintiff making a § 31-51q
          claim must affirmatively plead noninterference is an
          open question that neither this court nor our Supreme
          Court has addressed. There is a split among the Superior
          Courts on this issue. Some courts have imposed upon
          the plaintiff the burden to plead and prove a lack of
          interference. See, e.g., Coffy v. State, Superior Court,
          judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-
          S (June 18, 2021) (71 Conn. L. Rptr. 109, 111); Buscetto
          v. Saint Bernard School of Montville, Inc., Superior
          Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV-
          XX-XXXXXXX-S (February 22, 2013) (55 Conn. L. Rptr. 583,
          587). Other courts have imposed upon the defendant
          the burden of raising any substantial and material inter-
          ference as a special or affirmative defense. See, e.g.,
          D’Amato v. Board of Education, Docket No. CV-19-
          6091032-S, 2020 WL 1656202, *12 (Conn. Super. March
          3, 2020); Matthews v. Dept. of Public Safety, Superior
          Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-11-
          6019959-S (May 31, 2013) (56 Conn. L. Rptr. 262, 267–
          68). Several recent decisions from the United States
          District Court for the District of Connecticut also have
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 27

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text