In a decision that reaffirms the strength of arbitration awards and the limits of judicial review, the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed a trial court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award reinstating a police sergeant terminated for use of force during an arrest. The case, City of Torrington v. Council 4, AFSCME, offers some important
Does the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) include claims of associational discrimination based on an employee’s association with a disabled individual?
That was the issue before the Connecticut Appellate Court in Demarco v. Charter Oak Temple Restoration Assn., Inc. decided yesterday.
The Court held that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 (b) (1) of CFEPA
Employment discrimination claims are often decided on the merits of the claim. Courts routinely have to answer the question: Did the employer discriminate on the basis of a protected class against an employee in terminating the employment of that individual?
But there’s another class of cases that can resolved on procedural grounds, often times in
In prior posts, I’ve talked about the difficulty for employers in getting a motion for summary judgment granted in state court in discrimination cases.
(Motions for summary judgment are procedural tools that can be used when there are no disputed issues of material fact and therefore the court can decide the case on law
Today I want to talk about a housing discrimination claim. But wait! It has significant relevance to employment discrimination claims so bear with me for a second.
As an additional incentive, if you’ve been following the Marvel movies, this case will ALSO have elements of a multi-verse with multiple versions of the CHRO in play, so consider this case to be “Loki” for legal geeks. (If you don’t understand, your kids will.)
Ok, back to the law.
The story first starts in 2012 when the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld an award of $95,000 in noneconomic damages to an employee in an harassment claim, even though the employee did not offer any expert or medical testimony on the subject and provided very little to no evidence on it, according to the court’s opinion.
The case, Patino v. Birken Mfg, has often been cited for the proposition that noneconomic damages will not be overturned unless they are excessive or shocking. The Court’s decision cited several other cases to compare the verdicts in those cases with that one. These types of cases are also what is known as “garden variety” emotional distress damages.
Flash forward to 2015 and a case of housing discrimination filed at the CHRO. The condominium never appeared in the case to defend itself, which resulted in a default judgment. A hearing in damages was then held. At the hearing, the CHRO requested $75,000 in noneconomic damages on behalf of the individual. However, the referee awarded $15,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. Victory and case closed, right?
Nope. Then things get interesting. The CHRO appealed the decision of its own referee, contending the damages were insufficient. The Superior Court remanded the case for further decision and on remand, the referee did not change the damages award. The CHRO then appealed again to the Superior Court which affirmed the decision.
Which led to an appeal to the Connecticut Appellate with the CHRO representing the CHRO (Plaintiff) and the CHRO representing the CHRO (Defendant).
(Don’t try to think too much about it; your head will spin but you can read footnote 1 for an explanation where the court notes “The present case thus presents us with the unusual situation of both parties on appeal advocating for the same
interests; specifically, asking this court to reverse the decision of the Superior Court, vacate the referee’s award of damages and remand the case for a new calculation of damages.”)
For good measure, the State of Connecticut filed a brief as amicus curiae. (That’s a lot of tax dollars hard at work, as they say.)
On appeal in CHRO v. Cantillon, both versions of the CHRO asked the court to reverse, claiming a misapplication of prior case law. Both argued that Patino stands for the proposition that in “garden variety” emotional distress claims, “there is a presumptive monetary range of damages between $30,000 and $125,000.”Continue Reading CHRO vs. CHRO: How Much is “Garden Variety” Emotional Distress Really Worth
In a decision that will be officially released on Tuesday, the Connecticut Appellate Court has upheld the dismissal of a wrongful discharge claim against Marvelwood School, an independent school in Kent, Connecticut. In doing so, the Court turned back an attempt to limit the employment-at-will doctrine and provided employers in Connecticut with reassurance that wrongful discharge claims will be appropriately limited.
The case, Zweig v. Marvelwood School, can be viewed here.
(An upfront disclosure: My firm represented the employer here and I represented the school on the successful appeal.)
The facts of the case are relatively straightforward and are summarized in the court’s decision. The plaintiff Aaron Zweig was employed by the defendant Marvelwood School as a history teacher and school’s Director of Food Studies. That role required him to establish and maintain a garden on campus and use it to teach a class on food studies.
In May, 2015, Mr. Zweig allegedly objected to the school’s suggestion that telephone poles that had been treated with creosote, a pesticide and wood preservative, be used to make raised beds in the garden because he believed that the chemical posed a health risk to himself and his students.Continue Reading Connecticut Appellate Court Rejects Challenge to At-Will Employment Doctrine
Can an employer ever win a motion for summary judgment on a discrimination case in state court?
The prevailing wisdom is no. A fool’s errand, some might say.
But a new Connecticut Appellate Court case (Alvarez v. City of Middletown) shows at least what’s possible.
The case has some details that stand out. The
The Connecticut Appellate Court has an interesting case coming out officially early next week about an employer’s obligations to provide leave as a “reasonable accommodation”. You can download Barbabosa v. Board of Education here.
In it, the Court concludes that when attendance is an essential function of the job (as it will be for most
Back in September 2013, I reported on a seemingly never-ending case of Tomick v. UPS and mentioned that it was headed to its second appeal at the Connecticut Appellate Court. (I talked about the history of the case and the first appeal back in 2012 too. Amazingly, it dates to a termination decision way
My colleague, Jarad Lucan, returns today to recap a notable labor case that the Connecticut Appellate court decided this week (but officially released on March 24, 2015). It’s worth a read, even for non-union types, if only to show the importance of consistency in arguments.
A recent Appellate Court case, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Council 4, Local