Section 52-196a

Citation: Section 52-196a
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

2,425 chars

that was governed by a valid collective bargaining agree-
          ment between the Coast Guard and the defendant’s
          union and raised potential improprieties in the hiring
          process at the academy that necessarily implicated
          more than just the defendant’s own employment and
          personal grievances. In particular, the defendant’s
          speech touched on the possible existence of anti-union
          sentiment within the academy and quid pro quo arrange-
          ments between management officials and others related
          to hiring. Although the defendant’s statements also con-
          cerned the personal dispute between the parties, the
          allegations sufficiently implicate potential and signifi-
          cant issues regarding the hiring practices within a gov-
          ernmental entity, which are issues that would be of
          concern to the general public. Accordingly, we disagree
          with the court’s reasoning that the defendant’s special
          motion to dismiss failed due to his failure to establish
          that his alleged conduct with respect to the grievance
          proceedings did not relate to an exercise of a protected
          right in connection with a matter of public concern.
             This does not end the query, however. Even if the
          court failed to properly recognize that the defendant,
          at least in part, met his initial burden under § 52-196a,
          the plaintiffs may yet prevail in defeating the special
          motion to dismiss if they can demonstrate probable
          cause that they can prevail on the merits of their vexa-
          tious litigation counts regarding the grievance proceed-
          ings. A determination of whether allegations of a com-
          plaint, assuming they are true, demonstrate the
          existence of probable cause raises a question of law.
          Therefore, it is unnecessary to remand the matter to
          the trial court. Instead, on the basis of our plenary
          review of the record, we conclude that the plaintiffs
          cannot demonstrate probable cause that they will pre-
          vail on their claim of statutory or common-law vexa-
          tious litigation to the extent those counts are based on
          the grievance proceedings.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 27

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text