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

987 chars

disruptive events as the employer.’’ (Internal quotation
          marks omitted.) Id., 392. We agree with this assessment.
          Accordingly, we conclude that the court in the present
          case improperly granted the defendant’s motion to
          strike the plaintiff’s § 31-51q claims set forth in counts
          two and three of the operative complaint on the ground
          that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that his
          speech did not substantially or materially interfere with
          his job performance or the working relationship
          between him and his employer.
            The judgment is reversed only with respect to the
          granting of the defendant’s motion to strike counts two
          and three of the plaintiff’s complaint and the case is
          remanded for further proceedings according to law; the
          judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
               In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text