Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, the former town clerk of the town of Watertown, was removed from her position after she failed to report for work. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint against the town and certain of its officials (1) seeking a writ of mandamus ordering Defendants to restore her salary and benefits from the time they were discontinued and to continue such payments for the duration of her term, (2) claiming Defendants had violated her constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and (3) seeking recovery of her lost salary. The trial court granted Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on counts one and three. The court, however, rendered judgment in favor of defendants on count two of the complaint based upon the jury's finding that there had not been a constitutional violation of due process. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings on counts one and three, holding that the trial court improperly concluded that Plaintiff had a clear legal right to be paid for the balance of her elected term unless or until she was removed from office.

In an underlying employment dispute, Employee sued Employer for discrimination. After the jury issued a verdict in favor of Defendant, Plaintiff moved for a new trial, alleging that Defendant had engaged in discovery misconduct. The trial court denied Plaintiff's motion. The appellate court affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a party seeking a new trial on the basis of alleged knowing and deliberate discovery misconduct must show that the result at a new trial would likely be different. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the rule set forth in Varley v. Varley to determine whether a new trial should be granted on the basis of allegations that the judgment was obtained through fraud, as reframed in this decision, applies to motions for a new trial based on the discovery misconduct of the nonmoving party.

Plaintiff filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries she sustained while working for Employer. The workers' compensation commissioner awarded Plaintiff total disability benefits and reimbursement for certain prescription medication payments and mileage under the Workers' Compensation Act. The compensation review board affirmed but remanded for a determination of the specific amounts to be reimbursed to Plaintiff. Defendants, Employer and Insurer, appealed the commissioner's supplemental findings and award. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-301(a) required Defendants to appeal to the board. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction over the appeal because the jurisdictional requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-301(b), which governs appeals from the board to the appellate court, were fully satisfied in this case.

These two consolidated appeals arose from the collision of two city fire trucks. As a result of the collision, firefighter John Keane died, and firefighter William Mahoney suffered serious injuries. Monica Keane brought an action against Defendants, the firefighters who drove the trucks, alleging negligence in their operation of the fire trucks and that their negligence caused John Keane's death. In the second case, William and Erin Mahoney filed a complaint against Defendants, two firefighters and the city, alleging that the firefighters were negligent and that their negligence caused William Mahoney to sustain injuries. In both cases, the trial court granted the motions of Defendants to strike all counts of the complaint, concluding that Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-308 barred firefighters who are eligible to receive workers' compensation benefits from bringing negligence actions against other firefighters for their injuries. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court, holding that section 7-308 does not violate equal protection and, therefore, the trial court properly granted Defendants' motions to strike on the ground that the actions were barred by the immunity provision in section 7-308.

An employee of Plaintiff, the town of Southbury, was injured in a car accident with Defendants, Patricia and Joseph Gonyea, during the course of employment. Employee applied for and received workers' compensation benefits from Plaintiff. Employee also made a claim against Defendants, which was settled for the Defendants' policy insurance limit. After Plaintiff perfected its statutory lien rights, Employee forwarded to Plaintiff the net proceeds he received from the settlement. Thereafter, Plaintiff commenced the present action to recover past and future works' compensation benefits it had paid, or would become obligated to pay, as a result of Employee's injuries. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiff had assented to the settlement between Employee and Defendants and, thus, was barred from pursuing this action. The trial court granted Defendants' motion, concluding Plaintiff had assented to the settlement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff assented to the settlement and voluntarily relinquished its rights to recover an outstanding balance through subsequent litigation.

Plaintiff, the commissioner of labor, applied to the superior court for a warrant to inspect the premises of Defendant, a fire company, to investigate whether the fire company was in compliance with the requirements of Connecticut's Occupational Safety and Health Act. The trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the commissioner's warrant application, concluding that the fire company did not fall within the act's definition of a covered employer, which by statutory definition was "the state and any political subdivision thereof" because the fire company was an independent corporation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the fire company did not fall within the core definition of a political subdivision of the state.

Plaintiff, employee, brought an action against Defendants, an archdiocese and a parish pastor, claiming that their refusal to renew her contract for employment as the principal of the parish school constituted, inter alia, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of implied contract and breach of promissory estoppel. The trial court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the action on the ground that adjudication of Plaintiff's claims called for impermissible judicial interference in the internal governance of the archdiocese with respect to its selection of religious leaders. At issue on appeal was whether the ministerial exception to judicial authority that precludes a court from adjudicating certain religious disputes required dismissal of the action. The Supreme Court first determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal, and then reversed the trial court, holding that (1) in considering whether the ministerial exception is applicable in a particular case, a Connecticut state court must follow the Rweyemamu v. Cote standard; and (2) the ministerial exception applied to the various claims in the plaintiff's complaint. Remanded with direction to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.

Employee was diagnosed with silicosis, a condition caused by work with Employer, and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. During the course of Employee's employment, Employer's workers' compensation liability was covered by two insurers, first Liberty Mutual and, later, American Mutual. After Employee terminated his employment, American Mutual was declared insolvent. The Connecticut Guarantee Association subsequently became liable for certain American Mutual obligations. The workers' compensation commissioner held the association initially liable for payment of benefits as the last insurer on the risk. The workers' compensation review board affirmed. The association appealed, contending that deeming the association liable conflicted with the requirement under the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association Act that other insurance policies covering the same claim must be exhausted before recovery is permitted from the association. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that holding the association liable for an insolvent insurer's obligation as the last insurer on the risk does not conflict with the Guaranty Act.

Plaintiff sued defendants alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and General Statutes 7-465 when defendants terminated plaintiff from his employment as a senior field engineer in defendants' information technology department after it had determined that he was responsible for disruptions in its computer network. At issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding defendants a portion of defendants' attorney's fees that it incurred in defending against plaintiff's action. The court held that the trial court acted well within its discretion in awarding attorney's fees where plaintiff continued to litigate his claims against defendants after it became clear that those claims were groundless.

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.