depend on the particular facts and circumstances of
each case.’’ Priore v. Haig, supra, 344 Conn. 645.
In the present case, the alleged conduct of the defen-
dant occurred in connection with two separate and
distinct proceedings: (1) the filing and pursuit of a union
grievance and (2) the filing and pursuit of an application
for a civil protection order. With respect to the griev-
ance proceedings, the plaintiffs allege in the underlying
complaint that the defendant made a number of false
accusations against them, both in the written grievance
complaint and in oral statements made during the griev-
ance hearing. Specifically, the complaint provides that
the defendant asserted that the plaintiffs had used their
positions within the Coast Guard to influence the hiring
process, including by engaging in an improper quid pro
quo with Coast Guard officials and the person who
eventually was hired for the permanent promotion
sought by the defendant.11 With respect to the civil pro-
tection order proceedings, which arose out of the par-
ties’ altercation at the gun show, the complaint alleges
11
Paragraphs nine and ten of the complaint contain the following recitation
of the defendant’s alleged offensive conduct during the course of the griev-
ance proceedings: the defendant ‘‘falsely alleged that [the plaintiffs], through
their alleged conduct in the hiring process for the construction control
inspector position, had violated merit system principles (‘MSP’) because
there had been a ‘quid pro quo’ arrangement between the selecting official
and the successful applicant (‘JW’) in which Mary Robinson, using her
position as [a human resources] specialist, in some way participated. . . .
‘‘[T]he defendant also falsely alleged that: a. Michael Robinson was part
of the alleged conspiracy; b. JW is the best childhood friend of one of the
Robinsons’ sons; c. The hiring official was pressured into selecting JW acting
against his better judgment; d. Mary Robinson had the means to and may
have inappropriately influenced the referral lists used to select a candidate,
and covered her tracks with various deceptions; e. Michael Robinson said
that he would lie to protect Mary Robinson because she could get in a lot
of trouble; f. Veterans’ preference laws were violated; g. JW was unfairly
advanced through the quid pro quo arrangement and his personal relation-
ship with [human resources] officials, while [the defendant] was unfairly
treated because of his known affiliation with the union; h. Management
favors persons who do not affiliate with the union; i. Mary Robinson threat-
ened to investigate anyone who organized or helped the union to organize;
j. An insinuation that wrongdoing led to a change in Mary Robinson’s scope
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 15