Robinson v. V. D. (2024)

Citation: Robinson v. V. D. (2024)
Parent Document: Robinson v. V. D. (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-11-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10282961/robinson-v-v-d/ ↗

Full Text

2,351 chars

‘‘In December, 2020, the plaintiffs filed the present
       action against the defendant, alleging in their complaint
       that the defendant made false accusations against them
       on numerous occasions, namely, in the union grievance,
       during the proceedings which resulted from it, in the
       application for the [civil protection] order, and during
       the hearing that took place in the Superior Court on
       the [civil protection] order application. . . .
          ‘‘In January, 2021, the defendant filed a special motion
       to dismiss, pursuant to § 52-196a, arguing that the plain-
       tiffs’ allegations in this action arose from the exercise
       of his rights of free speech, to petition the government,
       and to associate as a member of a labor union under
       the Connecticut constitution and the first amendment
       to the United States constitution. The defendant also
       alleged, among other defenses, that the plaintiffs’ action
       violated public policy and that his statements were
       immune from the defamation claims, as they arose dur-
       ing judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
          ‘‘The plaintiffs opposed the motion, and, following a
       hearing, the trial court denied the special motion to
       dismiss. The court found that the defendant’s conduct
       as alleged in the complaint was not protected under
       § 52-196a because it addressed private concerns, rather
       than a matter of public concern, as defined in subsec-
       tion (a) (1) of the statute. The court further concluded
       that the defendant’s conduct during the work-related
       grievance process was personal in nature because it
       related to his employer’s denial of the defendant’s pro-
       motion and did not address the general practices of
       the employer. As such, the court determined that the
       defendant’s conduct during that process was not related
       to a matter of public concern under the government,
       zoning and other regulatory matters category of the
       definition [of a matter of public concern found in § 52-
       196a (a) (1) (C)]. . . . In addition, the trial court found
       that the defendant’s actions did not relate to a matter
Page 6                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text