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
Decisions Only Your In-House Lawyer Could Love
In a post from earlier this week , I indicated that a new Appellate Court decision had some interesting points on wrongful discharge claim that were worth exploring. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court released a FMLA decision that made a few headlines.
But what I didn’t mention was this: the takeaways from these cases are something only your company’s lawyer is going to love.
First, the Supreme Court case (Coleman v. State of Maryland). It answered the “burning” question of whether public employees could sue under the “self-care” provisions of the FMLA.
Not that many of us were asking the question in the first place.
Continue Reading Decisions Only Your In-House Lawyer Could Love
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
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
Second Circuit Throws Out Demoted Dean’s First Amendment Claim
The Second Circuit ruled Friday that the University of Connecticut is entitled to "qualified immunity" on a School of Engineering Dean’s claim that he was demoted in violation of his First Amendment rights to free speech. The case has very important ramifications for public
employers on how they can deal with criticism from managerial-level employees.
Court Allows First Amendment Retaliation Claim to Proceed To Trial
Last year, I talked about a First Amendment retaliation case and noted the difficulties in defending against such claims. A new case out of the federal court in Connecticut last week highlights the those difficulties even further.
In Brown v. Waterbury Board of Ed. (download here), the Plaintiff, a custodian for the Waterbury
Second Circuit Reinforces the Limits of First Amendment Protected Speech for Employees
Earlier this year, the Second Circuit came out with an important, wide-ranging decision that clarified the protections that public employees have under the First Amendment. Specifically, any speech that is "pursuant to" an employee’s duties is not protected.
In a summary order last week arising out of Connecticut, the Second Circuit reinforced that fact. In
Second Circuit Clarifies First Amendment’s Protections of Employee Speech: When Is Speech “Pursuant To” Employee’s Duties
In a case with wide-ranging implications for First Amendment cases in Connecticut (and New York), the Second Circuit today held that a school teacher’s union grievances were not protected speech.
The case, Weintraub v. Board of Education of New York (download here) covers a lot of ground, but it chimes in on an issue the
First Amendment Claim Denied Where Employee’s Duties Included Raising Issues About Patient Safety
It has been over a year since the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that where a public employee speaks as an employee and not a public citizen, such speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
Courts applying the decision have tried to impart some parameters to the Court’s decision such