Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 31-51q

Citation
Section 31-51q
Parent Document
Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1999-10-12

Other Sections in This Document (143)

Full Text

714 chars
The long and short of the performance that the defendant allegedly required of the plaintiff was that he was directed to take a flag from place A, a box containing such flags, and move it to place B, his workstation. Even though the flag is a symbol of government, the plaintiff has cited no judicial authority for the proposition that every work assignment involving the flag implicates an employee’s constitutional rights of free speech. See Troster v. Pennsylvania State Dept. of Correction, 65 F.3d 1086, 1092 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1047, *19116 S. Ct. 708, 133 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1995) (no compelled expression, in violation of first amendment, in requirement that employee wear flag patch on uniform).