Earlier this summer, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued two decisions that held that the free speech protections in Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-51q were limited by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos. To grossly oversimplify, an employee (public or private) whose speech related to their official job duties, was not entitled
Conn. Supreme Court Rejects $10M Verdict; Insubordination is Not Protected Speech
In one of the most significant employment law cases decided by the Connecticut Supreme Court in recent years, the Court unanimously ruled earlier this month that an employee’s free speech rights in the private workplace do not extend to speech pursuant to his job duties. Those rights do not cover insubordinate behavior either. In doing so, the Court reversed the jury verdict to the employee of approximately $10 million.
I typically don’t write about cases that I’ve handled, but given the importance of this case, the client, LabCorp, has approved an exception. My public thanks to them for allowing me to share this important case with you. (I first alerted you to the case in this post.)
The case, Schumann v. Dianon, can be downloaded here. You can read the basic facts there but the case concerned a laboratory doctor who refused to use certain diagnostic codes for lab tests that were being performed and claimed that it would affect patient safety. He brought a claim under Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-51q which purports to apply First Amendment protection to Connecticut employers. (You can view additional articles about the case here, here and here.)
A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Because the First Amendment typically applies to public employers, the issue in the Schumann case was whether the Garcetti rule applied to actions brought against private employers in Connecticut. A state statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-51q and prior caselaw has applied First Amendment protections to both public and private employers.Continue Reading Conn. Supreme Court Rejects $10M Verdict; Insubordination is Not Protected Speech
Court: Employee’s Complaint Trumps Performance Issues
It will come as no surprise to employers that summary judgment (essentially, throwing out a case before trial) in employment cases in state court is hard to get. State judges are typically reluctant to grant such a motion, which means cases get scheduled for trial — an expensive and uncertain proposition at best for employers.
When employers do get summary judgment, their victories may be shortlived. Just ask the employer in the case of Li v. Canberra Industires (download here), which will be officially released on March 27, 2012.
In that case, the employer had criticized the plaintiff for many months on her performance and the employer had the documentation to support it. In fact, she was told that if her performance didn’t improve, she could be fired. She was transfered to a new supervisor.Continue Reading Court: Employee’s Complaint Trumps Performance Issues
Employee’s Speech Against Employer May Be Protected by First Amendment
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Garcetti v. Ceballos that an employee’s speech pursuant to the employee’s official job duties was not protected by the First Amendment, employers have attempted to use that case as a shield against free speech lawsuits by employees.
But a decision by a federal court in Connecticut late
Court Not “Up In the Air”: Travel for Work Does Not Violate “Familial Association” Right
George Clooney famously made business travel look (somewhat) cool in the movie, Up in the Air.
Clooney’s character was single (really, would you expect otherwise?) and business travel was a bit glamorous (though a bit tedious as well).
Perhaps not surprisingly, absent from the movie was a discussion of whether business travel could be the
BREAKING: Connecticut Supreme Court Adopts Second Circuit’s “Ministerial Exception” Rule
The Connecticut Supreme Court today ruled (in a decision that will be effective August 2, 2011) that the ministerial exception found under the First Amendment bars certain employment related claims brought against religious institutions.
The court’s unanimous decision in Dayner v. Archdiocese of
Choose Your Own Takeaway from Appellate Court Decision
When people come up to me to talk about the blog, one of the things that often gets discussed is “How do you pick things to write about?” Often times, I tell them, it comes easily.
But a new Appellate Court decision, Johnson v. Board of Education — a decision that will be officially released
Quick Hits: GINA and Wellness Programs and More
So with the Supreme Court’s decision last week, there’s lots of other items that have slipped under the radar. (It’s Daylight Savings Time this Saturday, for example, which means spring is right around the corner.) Here’s some of things you might have missed:
- Wellness programs are all the rage. But do they violate GINA? That’s the
Back Again? After Remanding Case Once, Second Circuit This Time Finds for Employer on First Amendment Claims
In broad terms, the First Amendment prohibits public employers from retaliating against employees who engage in "protected speech". (Connecticut has a statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-51q that purports to apply the First Amendment to private employers too.) But proving these cases remains difficult for employees.
And even victories may later end up as
First Amendment Retaliation Claims by Town Facilities Manager Tossed by District Court
A former Branford Facilities Manager’s claims that his employment was terminated due to protected speech and his political affiliation were effectively dismissed on Friday, February 25th when a federal court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment.
The 40-page opinion provides good roadmap for employers (and their attorneys) to understanding such claims and what is