Connecticut Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Daniel Schwartz : Stamford, Hartford New Haven, CT

A contentious litigation between Bristol, Connecticut based-ESPN and its former baseball analyst, Harold Reynolds, was settled on Tuesday, according to a report by the Associated Press.

The lawsuit, filed in Hartford Superior Court in the fall of 2006, stemmed from Reynolds termination in the summer of 2006. Reynolds sued claiming "he was wrongly fired after a female intern complained about what he called a "brief and innocuous" hug."

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, though each side was able to claim that they were happy with the settlement.

At a minimum, it allows both sides to put an ugly lawsuit behind them.  Reynolds was represented by Attorney Joseph Garrison, while ESPN was represented by Paul Hastings. 

In case you were curious, the following link at the Smoking Gun contains a copy of the original complaint that was filed in the matter. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With complaints of sexual harassment, there is a tendency of some employers to overreact.  The employer may decide to terminate an otherwise successful employee on the basis of one incident -- no matter the context.  Some employers, of course, might simply ignore the problem altogether.

But another group of employers uses a "Goldilocks" approach to the situation -- the "just right" approach. This approach is in the middle of the two extremes and takes into account context and proportionality.  It also follows an important approach to complaints of harassment -- responding promptly and appropriately.

I've sometimes been asked over the years whether this approach actually works.  The theory of some of these questioners is that courts will take a complaint of sexual harassment seriously and will not tolerate employers who do not fire the alleged harasser.

However, as I've often said, federal law doesn't say that firing alleged harassers is appropriate in all cases.  Rather, it talks about how employers must take "prompt, remedial action" -- a much different standard.

A recent District Corut case in Connecticut, Abdul-Hakim v. Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc.   (Bryant, J.) reinforces that notion. In Abdul-Hakim, the employer took different steps to address complaints of harassment. First, the employer instructed the alleged harasser to stop communicating with the plaintiff. Then many months they moved shifts after another issue resurfaced. Critically, each complaint made by the Plaintiff was met with prompt and remedial action.

In Abdul-Hakim, the Plaintiff then resigned many months later and claimed that it was due to the hostile work environment. However, the Court granted the employer's request for summary judgment, finding that there was not a hostile work environment:

Examining the totality of the circumstances in this case, the Court concludes that the actions of Keller and the management were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms of Abdul-Hakeem’s employment and create an objectively hostile work environment. Keller’s conduct over an eighteen month period consisted of the following: a handwritten note expressing romantic interest; eye contact; a telephone call regarding the omitted location of a business meeting; an e-mail message stating nothing more than “Thank you”; a request for permission to say “Hello” to Abdul-Hakeem, which she granted; and [the alleged harasser's' work-related discussion with two other employees conducted within Abdul-Hakeem’s earshot. As to the management, Abdul-Hakeem merely alleges that the management did not communicate with her following the final incident with Keller. None of that conduct qualifies as extreme or pervasive.

The Court was also troubled by the amount of time that passed between the last complaint and her resignation:

The five and one-half month period between the last incident with [the alleged harasser] Keller and Abdul-Hakeem’s resignation also demonstrates the lack of a causal connection. If Keller’s alleged harassment had been severe and pervasive, it is difficult to explain why Abdul-Hakeem would wait five and one-half months after the harassment ended in order to resign. None of the facts of the present case would have compelled a reasonable person to resign from her employment, and, therefore, summary judgment is warranted in favor of [the employer].

The case illustrates an important point of employment cases: treat complaints seriously and take appropriate action if necessary. But there is also no need to overreact.  It may just be best to take a "just right" approach to discipline. 

UPDATE: Jon Hyman, at Ohio Employer's Law Blog, references my post by noting that coincidentally, he made a similar point in an article published in the February 2008 based on an Eighth Circuit case.  Check it out.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Since Christmas seems so long ago, it's not much of a surprise that the case of the alleged harassment of Santa Claus dropped from the headlines. But, the Danbury News-Times provided this update over the long weekend:

A 33-year-old woman charged with allegedly groping a Santa Claus at the Danbury Fair mall in December applied for a special program that could erase her criminal record.

Sandrama Lamy, who was arrested Dec. 15, is facing charges of fourth-degree sexual assault and breach of peace for touching Santa inappropriately while sitting on his lap, according to police.

While in Superior Court with her lawyer, Lamy, who was in a wheelchair, applied for a program called accelerated rehabilitation that is made available to first-time offenders. If she is granted the program at a February hearing date, her record could be totally erased after a period of probation.

Lamy and her lawyer, Catherine Rivard, declined to comment after the hearing.

The article notes that a hearing on Ms. Lamy's application is scheduled for February 27, 2008.

I'll leave it to the criminal law bloggers to comment on the particulars, but no one should really be surprised by the result. Accelerated Rehabilitation is designed, in many ways, for cases like this where the arrest and charge appear to be an aberration on a person's record.   And unless there is something particularly strange in the application, I would expect the application to be granted.

In any event, the case of the alleged harassment of Santa Claus appears close to a resolution. We'll see if any malls revise their policies and procedures for Santa Claus visits next holiday season.

And, if you're wondering, Santa Claus was unavailable for comment up in the North Pole.

(H/T: ABA Journal)

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Since my posting yesterday on the sexual harassment incident involving Santa Claus and a 33-year-old woman, there has been lots of feedback in blogs and newspapers. Time for a brief update:

First, the woman who allegedly groped Santa Claus spoke to the media and has professed her innocence.  According to a Danbury News-Times report:

"I don't know what's going on. I don't know if he was confused, it was a false report," Sandrama Lamy, 33, said this morning.
...
"I did not sit on his lap. A woman there said 'Be careful, that's my husband.' I said 'What does that have to do with the picture?'" Lamy said. "That's all I said, and I left." 
...

"Why would I do this? There were so many people there. If he (Santa) needed a few extra bucks I would have given it to him," Lamy said. "I've never been involved in a crime or anything. This is shocking to me."

She's scheduled to appear in court on January 3, 2008.  The newspaper was unable to get a copy of the photo.

Second, a number of other blogs have commented on this as well, including Abovethelaw.com (thanks David!), ABA Journal (thanks Martha!), HR World, and The Word on Employment Law.  All are worth checking out for their own little spins on the story.

Third, The Hartford Courant reports today on the perils of being Santa Claus with additional stories. 

The allegedly groped and pied Santas, however, have nothing on the St. Nick who was riding in a helicopter recently over Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Authorities said drug traffickers mistook Santa's chopper for a police operation and fired several rounds at the aircraft. No one was hurt, but two bullet holes were found in the fuselage, according to wire reports.

None of this can be good for Santa's spirits.

Happy Holidays, indeed.

UPDATE: Shortly after posting this, the Ohio Employer's Law Blog also put up a very informative post and link to an article about harassment by non-employees.  And Above the Law did a followup as well. 

FURTHER UPDATE: Two other blogs have also posted on this: Pointoflaw and A Public Defender. Thanks for their referrals.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday, I talked about issue spotting for holiday parties.  But what are some pro-active steps an employer can take? Well, there is no "one size fits all" approach.  Here are some suggestions to ponder that may fit for a particular employer.

To Drink or Not to Drink

• Since alcohol can be tied to many of the issues arising from the holiday party, the obvious suggestion is to not serve alcohol.  If you do, consider sending a message related to the holiday party that excessive drinking will not be tolerated. 
  
• Schedule the event at a restaurant or bar whose liability insurance would cover the event. 
  
• Arrange to have alternate transportation available to guests who do drink too much.  Offering a taxi or car service home is much cheaper than having to deal with an employee's car accident later on. 
• Use a cash bar or tickets that limit the number of drinks to which each employee is entitled. An open bar -- particularly before it turns into a cash bar -- only invites binge drinking.
• Consider serving just beer and wine; if your party serves tequila shots, for example, there will tend to be faster drinking than if done through beer and wine. 
• Do not skimp on food. There can be a tendency to under order for appetizers, etc, for cost purposes. However, high-protein foods, like cheese and meats, help slow the absorption of alcohol and keep guests from drinking on an empty stomach. 
• Make sure the people serving alcohol know that they can refuse service to anyone who appears intoxicated.  Designate some company employees (human resources, perhaps) to act as "scanners" to scan the crowd occasionally and make sure guests are behaving appropriately. 

• Invite spouses and family members, or clients or customers. Their presence will encourage employees to be on their best behavior and may minimize the chances of excessive drinking and inappropriate sexual conduct.
• Daytime (lunch) events work better than night events.  Consider linking it to another activity so the party (and drinking) isn't the sole focus. 
• Attendance at the party should be strictly voluntary and managers should be instructed not to suggest that  attendance will benefit a person’s standing within the company.
• To address any religious considerations of employees, consider scheduling the party during the week (Monday through Thursday).  Similarly, the holiday party should be just that -- a holiday party -- and not tied to any particular religion.  
• Lastly, if any complaints (of sexual harassment or otherwise) are made at or after the party, the employer should take prompt, effective steps to address the complaint.  If an employee who complains at a party about inappropriate behavior, it may be necessary to address the issue then and there.

As always, employers who have specific legal questions, should seek the appropriate legal counsel. The ideas listed above are just some examples of issues for employers to consider as they approach their holiday party. 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

For the second time in two days, the Second Circuit has reversed a lower court's dismissal of an employment claim.

This time, in Patane v. Clark, released today, the Second Circuit reversed an decision granting a motion to dismiss a claim of sexual harassment claim.  The takeaway from the case today is that the mere presence of pornography in the workplace -- even if never viewed directly by the plaintiff-employee -- may be sufficient to state a claim of sexual harassment (and that the District Court was wrong to dismiss such a claim without even allowing the parties to conduct discovery).

The Court's key finding is summarized in this section:

Specifically, the district court concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege that she faced an objectively hostile work environment, “because [she] never saw the videos, witnessed [her supervisor] watch the videos, or witnessed [her supervisor] performing sexual acts.” Patane, 435 F. Supp. 2d at 316. However, Plaintiff does allege that she regularly observed [him] watching pornographic videos. This Court has specifically recognized that the mere presence of pornography in a workplace can alter the “status” of women therein and is relevant to assessing the objective hostility of the environment....

Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that she was regularly required to handle pornographic videotapes in the course of performing her employment responsibilities of opening and delivering [her supervisors] mail; and that she once discovered hard core pornographic websites that [he] viewed on her workplace computer. Combined with Plaintiff’s other allegations regarding [his] sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace, including her allegation regarding his earlier harassment of [another employee], and with [the employer’s] failure to take any action notwithstanding Plaintiff’s numerous complaints, a jury could well conclude that Plaintiff was subject to frequent severely offensive conduct that interfered with her ability to perform her secretarial functions.

This case is yet another reminder to employers to: 1) be vigilant about preventing pornography in the workplace; and 2) to investigate all claims seriously.  I discussed this in yesterday's post, but the Second Circuit's message to employers should be loud and clear -- investigate all claims of gender discrimination and harassment; failure to do so will leave the employer susceptible to such claims in the future.  This decision is a full published decision and can be cited in future cases.

The case is also a reminder to bolster any internet firewalls to prevent access to pornographic websites from the workplace.  Even if another employee never views the pornography directly, its presence (and tacit allowance by an employer) could be used as the basis for a hostile work environment claim.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

With the Office Holiday Party scene upon us, most articles, like this one in the New York Times tend to point out the obvious risks associated with them -- sexual harassment.  In my view, if employers are not aware that mixing alcohol with co-workers in a festive setting can be a recipe for harassment claims, that employer probably has larger HR issues than just those arising at the holiday party.  

So, for human resource professionals and in-house counsel, what are some other issues for employers to spot and be aware of?  They fall into two large categories, both of which, not surprisingly, may relate to alcohol.

• Drinking and Driving
  At many holiday parties (though not all nowadays), alcohol, in one form or another, is served. Most employees will behave responsibly but experience dictates that some will get intoxicated.  If the employee then gets into an accident on the way home, will the employer may be held liable for any resulting deaths, injuries or damages to property.
  
  Until recently or so, the answer under most states’ laws generally was “no.” There are some courts, though, that are finding legal theories under which employers may be held responsible for injuries caused by an employee who drinks at a business function, such as an office party and then drives while under the influence.  Other times, these claims are handled under "dram shop" laws which imposes liability on a commercial establishment for selling liquor to an intoxicated person. 
  
  The law varies greatly from state to state and because of cross-border issues between New York and Connecticut, it would be irresponsible to provide a bright line test in those states.  Rather, employers with offices nationwide should be aware that some courts have extended the social host theory to employers and imposed “business host” liability. Connecticut may be skeptical of such claims.  Nevertheless, an employer ought to be concerned about being liable for injuries to third persons caused by an employee who gets drunk at an employer function and then drives.  For this reason, putting limits on alcohol being served may be a good tool for the employer to use at such parties.
  
  
• Workers’ Compensation Claims
  Suppose a drunk employee falls down while doing the Cha-Cha Slide, or takes a tumble  down the stairs, will workers compensation apply? Some workers’ compensation laws impose liability on employers for injuries to employees which arise out of and in the course of their employment, without regard to the fault of the injured employee. Some states, like Connecticut, have an exception -- an employer may not liable for compensation when the employee's injury was caused by the employee's voluntary intoxication.  Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-284(a). 
  
  Of course, this is a mixed blessing for an employer.  If the employee is not covered by workers compensation, then the employee may still try a cause of action against the employer for negligence or another common law claim.
  

And last, but not least, if any of your employees are dancing like this classic video, well, perhaps cutting down on alcohol AND dancing at your holiday party may be in order.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Summary Orders (in other words, decisions with no precedential value) by the Second Circuit typically are not worth noting. However, a decision released today is telling for the court's view of race and gender discrimination cases and it can be cited by parties under certain limitations.

In Williams v. Consolidated Edison of New York, the court reversed a lower court's decision granting summary judgment to the employer on race and gender harassment grounds.  While the court may have been skeptical of the claims, it found that the amount of evidence presented by the Plaintiff -- if believed -- could support a claim of racial and gender harassment.

In approximately three years at the company: (1) one supervisor..., referred to Williams as a “black b****” on more than one occasion and ... another supervisor,
referred to her as a “b****”; (2) [one supervisor] directed gender-based verbal abuse at Williams...; (3) [one supervisor insinuated that Williams and [another employee] were having a sexual relationship; (4) several male co-workers repeatedly used offensive and derogatory terms for women, such as “b***” and “c***”; (5) women encountered pornographic materials in the workplace on at least several  occasions; (6) Williams and [another employee] experienced tampering and sabotage of their equipment; (7) male co-workers were unwelcoming to women and commented that they did not belong in the Brooklyn Flush unit; (8) male workers sought to avoid shifts with women and supervisors would honor their requests; (9) at least one employee made comments to the effect that supervisors should let the men know when women were menstruating; and (10) women were not provided with adequate locker room facilities for months, until October 2001, although the men were. In addition, one of Ms. Williams’s coworkers... states that she, too, was sexually harassed, including that she was called a “b**” and a “cunt” on a regular basis, that supervisors ignored her complaints about this verbal
abuse, and that one supervisor threatened to suspend her from her job if she continued to complain.

Obviously, as readers of this blog know, these allegations are merely that -- allegations.  But the language used here and the different types of harassment alleged, was obviously more than enough for the Second Circuit to reverse.

The Court also addressed the employer's response to co-worker harassment:

Whether Con Ed’s response to Williams’s complaints about a sexually and racially hostile work environment — and the information it obtained in the process of investigating her complaints — constituted “appropriate remedial action” is subject to reasonable dispute on the record before us. During the first human resources investigation into Williams’s complaints in 2002, several of Williams’s co-workers verified her allegations that men sought to avoid working with women and supervisors honored their requests and that African-American employees were sent more frequently to high-crime neighborhoods. Yet inexplicably, the report summarizing the investigation did not discuss these co-worker accounts in reaching its conclusion that there was no record of discriminatory work assignments. Given the information that Con Ed received during its investigation and the absence of anything in the record indicating whether Con Ed followed up on this information, a reasonable juror could find that Con Ed failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action in response to substantiated allegations of sexual and racial hostility in the workplace.

It's easy to look back on this case and point out that the employer should've done more.  And indeed, an investigation that may look thorough at the time, can appear to be incomplete given a the context later on.  However, the case is a further illustration about the importance of conducting a thorough investigation when complaints of harassment are made and detailing that investigation in a written report.  Whether that still would've been enough here is questionable but it might have helped. 

Moreover, when a second complaint was made by Williams and investigated until Williams said she was too "stressed" to continue, the court found that this second investigation was also subject to dispute and the employer may not have done enough.

When Williams complained a second time to human resources about being subject to a sexually hostile work environment, the human resources officer closed his investigation after speaking only to Williams’s supervisor. That action was based in part on Williams’s decision not to follow up with him because she was “too stressed.” A reasonable fact-finder could conclude this second investigation was a perfunctory and inappropriate response to Williams’s hostile work environment allegations, which Con Ed arguably should have investigated regardless of whether Williams had the time or the energy to pursue it further.

This illustrates the importance of continuing a sexual harassment investigation to its conclusion -- regardless of whether a complainant later refuses to cooperate or asks that the investigation be conducted in private. The court's decision suggests that employers have an independent and affirmative obligation to investigate claims of harassment, regardless of the complainant's wishes, once it is made aware of them

What is also notable about the case is that the court affirmed summary judgment to the employer on the retaliation claims finding them either time-barred or without merit.  In essence, the court found that the reasons given by the employer for the discipline of the employee were legitimate. 

Williams admitted that she made statements referring to the possibility of driving a truck into the trailers of the Brooklyn flush facility and to going “postal” at work — comments that invoke images of violence against her superiors and that could be understood as veiled threats. Furthermore, three coworkers reported that those comments were even more explicitly threatening than Williams admitted. Based on its zero tolerance policy of violence or threats of violence in the workplace, [the employer] took disciplinary action.

It's unfortunate that this case cannot be cited for precedent because it speaks to some issues that could use further clarification by the Second Circuit. But employers and in-house counsel can still take the lessons of the case to heart.

(H/T - Wait A Second!)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I enjoy my work as an employment lawyer for the simple fact that each case is different and "you can't make this stuff up."

An article in today's The Advocate of Stamford, Connecticut, proves that theory correct.  An interesting story today about a female town of Stamford employee who was disciplined for allegedly harassing a male supervisor, contains the sorts of details that you really can't make up.  

According to the article, the alleged harassment by the female employee included sending an e-mail with lyrics from a Barenaked Ladies song.

The story is too long to recap here, but the gist of the article can be gleaned below:

[An employee in the Human Resources Division], was suspended without pay Oct. 17 and Oct. 18 for sending inappropriate e-mails and voice mails that referenced a romantic interest in the town's Director of Legal Affairs...who oversees her.  ...

City officials said [an] August e-mail, in which [the employee] makes a reference to [the supervisor] having a past life in ancient Rome, violated its sexual harassment policy and technology policy, which covers use of city computers, telephones and other electronic devices. In the message, [the employee] wrote, "I knew you before the fall of Rome" - lyrics from the song "It's All Been Done" by Barenaked Ladies.

During the predisciplinary hearing, [the employee] said the lyrics were not meant as a threat. She chose them because they "very cleverly captured the strange psychic experience that I have, you know, mistakenly shared with city officials."

While pictures of naked women have certain been used as the basis for harassment by male employees, I believe this is the first time "Barenaked Ladies" have been used by a female employees for alleged harassment of a male employee.  There's always a first time for everything.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There's lots of good content that is out there in the blogosphere and I thought I would pass along a few of the noteworthy entries I've read this week. 

• Michael Moore over at the Pennsylvania Employment Law Blog has a great recap on the fallout of this week's sexual harassment case with his own tips on investigation.
   
• Will Schendel over at the Alaska Employment Law Blog has chimed in as well and points readers to a lack of standards in some other standards for how to deal with sexual harassment investigations and training. 
  
• Kris Dunn, over at the HR Capitalist, has a fascinating look at a EEOC-filed case where the employer allegedly required employees returning to work after a sick leave to sign a release allowing the employer access to their physician records. 
  
• Workplace Horizons has a detailed summary of what's going on with the pay discrimination legislation pending in Congress. 
  
• Fisher & Phillips has an interesting look at sensitivity to fragrances and whether that can constitute a disability. 

Lastly, I strongly recommend using an RSS feed reader, like Google Reader, to broaden your reading and save time. I've written a "how-to" article to make it easy. Google Reader is also now out of beta and its a great tool for people unfamiliar to RSS feeds.  It's the best way to keep up with all that's out there.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The headlines of the week nationally have certainly surrounded sexual harassment allegations both old and new.  (Note: Due to my firm's involvement in one of those cases, I will not be blogging on it). 

But with the issue back in the forefront, I've been surprised lately in my discussions by how some small to mid-size employers are overlooking the basics in Connecticut.   Do they believe that such conduct just doesn't exist anymore or do they believe that their employees "know it all" about the subject? While claims of sex discrimination filed with the EEOC are down nearly 10 percentt from their peak in 2002, the numbers hardly show such a pronounced drop off that would indicate we've "solved' the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace.  Indeed over 20,000 complaints were still filed with the EEOC as of 2006.

What do I mean by the basics? In Connecticut, its training and posting.  These requirements are found in the administrative regulations , Conn. Regs 46a-54-200 et seq. set up by the CHRO regarding sexual harassment prevention. 

• For posting: All employers who have 3 or more employees must notices that say sexual harassment is illegal and address what the remedies are for such harassment.  The regulations all spell out in specifics that the notices must contain certain elements. Fortunately, the CHRO has also prepared a model poster that complies with the statute and is available for free download. 

Of course, there are other laws as well that require postings to be set up.  Rather than address each law separately, consider using a company that specializes in such posters, like G.Neil. 

• For training: The training requirements only apply to employers who have 50 or more employees and apply only to supervisory employees.  (This does not mean that employers who have less than 50 should NOT provide the training; instead, it means that they are not required to conduct such training.) 

Specifically, within 6 months of a new supervisor being hired or an employee being promoted to a supervisory position, the employee must receive at least two hours of training.  The format of the training is fairly rigid; according to the regulations:

Such training and education shall be conducted in a classroom-like setting, using clear and understandable language and in a format that allows participants to ask questions and receive answers.

Since that time, the CHRO has indicated, in an informal opinion, that some e-learning training may satisfy this requirement.  Regardless, the training must also include discussion of six discrete topics such as what the state and federal laws say, what types of conduct could be considered sexual harassment, and discussing strategies for preventing such harassment.

Here the kicker: The regulations suggest (but do not mandate) that such training be updated for ALL supervisory employees every three years.   What does this mean? It means that if an employer wants to project an image that it has a strong policy against sexual harassment, it should follow this advisory regulation to show that it is doing above and beyond what is required.

The regulations also suggest (but do not mandate) that records be kept of the training. Again, the regulations suggest a course of action that employers would be wise to follow.

Certainly, the workplace has changed in the 16 years since the issues surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Professor Anita Hill became so widely publicized. But for employers in Connecticut, sustained vigilance is needed to make sure these changes and the progress that has been made, stick.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

A recent article by the Connecticut Law Tribune reported on the trial of two bar workers who claimed that they were terminated in retaliation for reporting a supervisor's alleged sexual harassment of a waitress.  According to court records In the trial of  Daniel Van Kruiningen and Kimberly Chatterton v. Plan B, LLC d/b/a Mohegan After Dark, which took place in federal court in May 2007 (the article fails to mention the date), the jury found for the employer on all counts, including a common law claim for wrongful discharge. 

The Tribune article sums up the salacious allegations found in the Complaint:

Mystic resident Daniel Van Kruiningen and Kimberly Chatterton of Norwich were assistant manager and club manager of Ultra 88, an upscale lounge at the Mohegan Sun casino on Dec. 7, 2003. After hours, Chatterton was checking on other bars owned by her employer... 

Afterwards, Van Kruiningen obtained copies of the video surveillance camera’s recordings at Lucky’s Lounge, which showed that a young waitress had returned to Lucky’s after Chatterton left. Indistinctly, the videos appeared to show that [the supervisor] had sex with her on or near the bar.

According to the Complaint in the matter, they alleged that the video showed the supervisor causing the waitress to become intoxicated through serving of alcohol. Chatterton and Van Kruiningen alleged that they complained about serving alcohol to this underage waitress and about the incident, and alleged that they were fired a month after this incident in retaliation. 

From an employment law perspective, the most interesting aspect of the case is the wrongful-discharge claim.  The real action on this count took place behind the scenes before the trial, however.  In ruling on a motion for judgment, the District Court rejected the employer's claim that reporting a supervisor's serving of alcohol to minors was not an "important public policy" giving rise to an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.  The court found that a wrongful discharge claim could arise from a state statute that forbids the serving of alcohol to minors. 

Footnote 6 of the opinion contains an interesting observation by the court about whether its ruling  will open the floodgates in other matters.

Defendant maintains that “[u]nder plaintiffs’ theory, every employee who observes – but does not participate in – a supervisor’s single violation of an important public policy, and who reports such violation to her employer, is immune from termination on an at-will basis.” ...This is an overstatement because it overlooks the reality that such plaintiff must prove that he or she was terminated in retaliation for his or her reports of such  unlawful conduct; while the amount of allegedly unlawful conduct, and/or the number of times plaintiffs voiced complaints, may be relevant to the jury’s causation determination, these considerations do not render plaintiffs’ public policy claim as alleged legally insufficient.

What does this mean for employers in the state? It's another case that has, depending on your perspective, eroded the at-will employment doctrine in Connecticut further, or expanded wrongful discharge claims to protect employees who report violations of state law. Although the employer ultimately prevailed at trial, the cost of the litigation as well as the uncertainty regarding the outcome must have weighed on the employer.

For employers in the food-services industry, the decision takes on some added significance. Because complaints regarding other employee's violations of liquor laws could give rise to a wrongful discharge claim under this decision, employers should consider investigating such complaints and ensuring that its supervisors do not retaliate against employees who make such complaints. Advice of legal counsel to discuss the particular circumstances should also be considered.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks