that the defendant made several false allegations and
statements regarding the plaintiffs, both in his applica-
tion for a civil protection order and during the subse-
quent hearing on the application before the Superior
Court.12 Having considered all relevant factors, we are
of work circa 2010 when it was determined that Michael Robinson’s position
as [National Association of Government Employees] union steward, which
he had just obtained at that time, raised an appearance of potential conflicts
of interest, and an assertion that both Robinsons were accused of unfair
labor practices based on this situation; k. Mary Robinson had exerted inap-
propriate control over hiring at the academy for years; l. Mary Robinson
received the ‘report of hire’ of JW although she should not have had access
to it; m. Michael Robinson, acting on his own behalf and on behalf of Mary
Robinson, relentlessly harassed and threatened [the defendant] about the
grievance; n. Mary Robinson cut another employee ‘out of the loop’ on the
JW hiring process; o. Mary Robinson ‘helped’ JW with his resume for the
job posting but did not help anyone else; p. Michael Robinson encouraged
[the defendant] not to post for the open position because Mary Robinson
could get him a supervisory job; q. Michael Robinson made ‘continual transits
to and from [Mary Robinson’s] office with reports about [the defendant];
and r. Michael Robinson threatened and harassed [the defendant] about
filing the grievance.’’
12
Paragraphs twenty-five through twenty-seven of the complaint contain
the following recitation of the defendant’s alleged conduct as it relates to
the civil protection order: In the civil protection order application, the
defendant ‘‘falsely claimed that he was unsafe at work because Michael
Robinson had followed and threatened him at work . . . [and] that he was
in imminent danger. . . . [The defendant] falsely accused Michael Robinson
of having ‘laid in wait [for him at the gun show] in attempt to threaten and
harass [him]. . .’; of stalking him at work several times and threatening him
about the [union grievance]; kicking at and attempting to take the trailer
hitch from his vehicle; backing into his vehicle; continuing ‘to come at’ him
as he was walking to his vehicle and that another club member had to
physically restrain him; and threatened his job.’’ At the contested hearing
on the civil protection order application, the defendant testified that ‘‘a. He
had told his supervisor at the academy that Michael Robinson had stalked
and harassed him at work; b. Michael Robinson tried to remove his trailer
hitch from and was kicking his vehicle after the [gun show]; c. Michael
Robinson carries a concealed weapon, implying that he was carrying a
weapon during the [gun show] incident . . . and that he would present a
danger if he were carrying one . . . d. Michael Robinson kicked open the
door of his own vehicle and ‘came at’ [the defendant]; e. (Implied that) his
[fourteen] year old son was in danger on account of Michael Robinson’s
behavior after the [gun show], and that he and his family generally were
unsafe when Michael Robinson was around; f. (Via a recording) said loudly
Page 16 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0