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

913 chars
The same danger applies in the present case. The defendant has a viable expressive interest in seeing that its workplace — which it owns and in which its products are produced — be festooned with American flags. Moreover, it is likely that, in most cases in which an employee claims that his or her right to express himself or herself at the workplace has been stifled by the employer, the employer would have some corresponding expressive interest at stake as well.5 Interpreting § 31-51q so as to apply to private workplace expression, as the majority does, places the power of the state, in the form of the court that enforces the employee’s cause of action; see Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161 (1948); on the side of the employee’s expressive interest to the detriment of that of the employer.6 I *33would construe § 31-51q so as to avoid that potential constitutional violation.