|
|
| Connecticut >> Massachusetts >> New Hampshire >> New Jersey >> New York >> Rhode Island >> United Kingdom |
|
|
CONNECTICUT LAW UPDATE
June 2021
| |
Employment - Termination of School Coach
Authored By: Zachary J. Broughton
Ortiz v. Torres-Rodriguez, 205 Conn. App. 129 (2021). The Connecticut Appellate Court adopted the full opinion of the trial court in affirming the decision to grant summary judgment for the defendant, an acting school superintendent, on claims of recklessness, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and libel. The plaintiff, a high school football coach, was terminated after receiving complaints as to his temperament directed at students, coaching staff, and parents. The defendant issued a statement announcing the termination: “The first priority of the Hartford Public Schools is to ensure student safety. As Acting Superintendent of Schools, I will not allow any unacceptable staff behavior during my tenure. In the unfortunate event that, despite our best efforts to the contrary, individuals engage in inappropriate interactions with students, with their families, with staff or with any of the visitors who come to our schools and events, such individuals will be dealt with swiftly in accordance with the policies established by the Hartford Board of Education.” On the recklessness claim, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to rebut evidence that the defendant was not the one responsible for termination, and that because the plaintiff was an at-will employee, and proper procedures were followed, the plaintiff could not show an extreme departure from ordinary or reasonable care, with or without a conscious choice of a course of action involving serious dangers to others. On the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court determined that the statement was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous. Regarding the libel claim, the court found that the plaintiff did not allege that the statement was intrinsically false. Furthermore, despite the plaintiff’s arguments that the statement characterized him as a child abuser, no media reports suggested such conduct as a result of the statement.
| |
Adminstrative Law - Timely Service and Filing of Appeals
Authored By: Christina Canales
Lewis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 202 Conn. App. 607 (2021). The pro se plaintiff claimed the trial court erred in dismissing his administrative appeal because the clerk of the court, either negligently or intentionally, gave him incorrect instructions on how to serve and file the appeal. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the clerk of the court incorrectly instructed him that service had to be completed by a marshal, and refused to file the appeal when service was not effected through a marshal. On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court had to interpret General Statutes § 4-183. The court noted that General Statutes § 4-183 (c) requires that the service and filing of an administrative appeal occur within forty-five days of the notice of final decision. However, whereas the plaintiff applied for a fee waiver, § 4-183 (m) served to toll the time limit for filing the appeal until such time that a decision was rendered on the fee waiver application. Further, the court found that although service by certified mail is effective under § 4-183 (c) upon deposit in the mail, there is no similar provision concerning filing the appeal. Thus, filing is effective when received by the clerk’s office. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Court found that the appeal was properly dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff failed to comply with the forty-five day time limit for filing. The court noted that even if the clerk should have accepted the appeal when filed, it was still untimely.
| |
Noncompete Provisions - Unreasonable Restraint on Trade
Authored By: Gabriel D'Antonio
DeLeo v. Equale & Cirone, LLP, 202 Conn. App. 650 (2021). The Connecticut Appellate Court determined whether a noncompete agreement existing between an accounting limited liability partnership and a former partner (the plaintiff) was enforceable. The plaintiff was suspected of having a romantic relationship with one of the staff accountants at the firm, and a decision was ultimately made between the parties that resulted in the plaintiff leaving the firm. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed suit against the partnership, and the partnership filed a counterclaim. The counterclaim alleged, in part, that the plaintiff was bound by a noncompete provision existing in his partnership contract, which required the plaintiff to compensate the partnership for any former clients for whom the plaintiff had performed accounting services after his departure from the firm. The plaintiff would have owed $762,366 to the partnership if this provision was enforced. The trial court found that the noncompete provision’s five-year restriction exceeded what was necessary to protect the partnership’s interests, that it interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to pursue his occupation by preventing him from providing services to clients, and that enforcement of the provision would adversely affect the public’s ability to retain the accounting services of its choice. On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s findings that the noncompete provision had a disproportionate effect on the plaintiff and public. Therefore, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the noncompete provision was unenforceable because it was an unreasonable restraint on trade.
| |
Trial Evidence - Plaintiffs' Credibility
Authored By: James H. Golicz
McCrea v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 204 Conn. App. 796 (2021). The plaintiffs brought a lawsuit for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident. At trial, the defendants elicited testimony that both plaintiffs were referred to the same treating physicians by a curated list of physicians from by their prior attorney. Additionally, defense counsel questioned one plaintiff as to her involvement in a previous motor vehicle accident and her resulting injuries. The trial court overruled the plaintiffs’ objections that the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. The trial court also precluded the plaintiffs from offering evidence that they were referred to those physicians for insurance related reasons. On appeal following a defense verdict, the plaintiffs argued that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing evidence of the physician referrals and the previous motor vehicle accident, and by the precluding the plaintiffs from explaining why they were referred to their physicians. The Connecticut Appellate Court held that the line of questioning on physician referrals was relevant on the issue of credibility, specifically whether the plaintiffs’ treatment was motivated by pain or for purposes of litigation and establishing damages. The court also held the evidence of the previous motor vehicle accident was relevant on the issue of causation. However, the court further held that the trial court’s preclusion of the plaintiffs’ evidence concerning physician referrals constituted harmful error. The court explained that when a defendant places a plaintiff’s credibility at issue, the plaintiff is permitted to introduce evidence to combat such accusations. As such, the case remanded for a new trial.
| |
Defamation - Fair Reporting Privilege
Authored By: Michael S. Tripicco
Elder v. 21st Century Media Newspaper, LLC, 204 Conn. App. 414 (2021). The attorney plaintiff brought a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper publisher defendant for reporting on a professional disciplinary action against him. The disciplinary action concerned an incident in which the plaintiff allegedly claimed to be a different attorney during the course of a phone call with an undercover police officer. The trial court in the disciplinary action found that the plaintiff had violated the rules of professional conduct, and accordingly imposed upon him a one-year suspension from the practice of law. Following that suspension, the newspaper published an article which, among other things, stated that the plaintiff had “impersonated” the other attorney. The plaintiff argued that the articles failed to discuss the undercover officer’s purportedly “deceptive posturing,” thus defaming the plaintiff by “paint[ing] an incomplete and misleading account of the incident.” In affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the newspaper, the Connecticut Appellate Court determined that the defendant’s articles were substantially similar to the findings of the trial court in the disciplinary action, and that deviations claimed by the plaintiff were immaterial. The plaintiff’s defamation claims were therefore barred by the fair reporting privilege.
| |
| Click on the images below to learn more about the editors.
| |
| If you have any questions or would like copies of any of the cases noted above, please feel free to contact this edition's contributors or the editors.
| |
| With ten offices throughout the Northeast and almost 200 attorneys, including a deep bench of talented and well-respected litigators and exceptional commercial law, transactional and compliance attorneys, Morrison Mahoney LLP is a regional litigation and business law powerhouse.
For over 70 years, we have been providing a broad array of services and offering our clients cost- effective, smartly tailored legal solutions based on a comprehensive, sophisticated and integrated approach concerning a variety of complex issues.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
