Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

On April 19, 2006, Plaintiff Gabrielle Nyenhuis, in the course of her employment as a uniformed police officer of Defendant Metropolitan District Commission (District), had an altercation with a member of the public. The following day, in response to a citizen complaint filed against her, the District placed Plaintiff on administrative duty. An internal investigation was launched, and in June, the West Hartford Police Department arrested Plaintiff and charged her with third degree assault. She would later be acquitted on the charge. The District reinstated Plaintiff to active duty. In November, 2007, Plaintiff initiated two complaints against the District pursuant to its grievance procedure, seeking accrued vacation and lost overtime stemming from the time she was placed on administrative duty until her reinstatement. While the grievances were pending, Plaintiff filed suit in the circuit court seeking indemnification for, among other things, the same vacation time and lost overtime. The court awarded Plaintiff damages and the District appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courtâs award of damages, but disagreed with the courtâs method of calculating them. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court for a rehearing on the issue of damages.

Plaintiff Randall Motzer worked for Defendants Edward Haberli and E. Haberli Electric, LLC as an electricianâs apprentice. In June, 2004, he was working on a job site to help install electrical wiring through the ground floor of an apartment complex. The task required two people to complete. Bryan Papillo, the other worker, drilled holes through the floor above and fed wires to Plaintiff working below. In one instance, Plaintiff put his fingers through the hole to retrieve the wires and heard Papillo yell something just as a drill bit came down on Plaintiffâs finger. Plaintiff had to have part of his finger removed. As a result of this injury, Plaintiff received workersâ compensation benefits. Notwithstanding the benefits, Plaintiff filed a two count complaint against Defendants, alleging among other things, Defendants engaged in âserious and willful misconductâ and that conduct lead to Plaintiffâs injury. Defendants denied responsibility and raised five special defenses. A jury trial on the matter began in March, 2009. At the close of the case, Defendants moved for a directed verdict alleging Plaintiff failed to prove Defendants were the cause of Plaintiffâs injury. The trial court rendered judgment for Defendants. On review, the Supreme Court found that the record was sufficient to support the trial courtâs grant of a directed verdict to Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.