AC45220 - Schofield v. Rafley, Inc. (“This action sounding in breach of contract and employment discrimination follows a prior action commenced in 2017 between the same parties that involved similar claims (2017 action). See Schofield v. Rafley, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-17-6078256-S (May 14, 2020). The substitute plaintiff, Andrea Sadler, executor of the estate of Lydia Schofield (decedent), now appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Rafley, Inc. (Rafley), Joseph Mason, and Karen Mason. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed the decedent’s employment discrimination count as untimely and (2) granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Rafley on the breach of contract count. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45498 - International Assn. of EMTs & Paramedics, Local R1-701 v. Bristol Hospital EMS, LLC (“The defendant, Bristol Hospital EMS, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court granting the motion of the plaintiff, International Association of EMTs and Paramedics, Local R1-701, to enforce a prior judgment of the court confirming the arbitration award to reinstate an employee of the defendant. The defendant claims the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to require that medical authorization be given to the employee and (2) improperly awarded back pay and attorney’s fees when those issues were not properly before it. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45341 - Dusto v. Rogers Corp. (“The plaintiff, Lana Kelly, acting in her capacity as executor of the estates of Harold Dusto and his wife, Anita Dusto,1 appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of Harold Dusto’s employer, Rogers Corporation (Rogers), and the judgment of dismissal rendered in favor of Special Electric Company, Inc. (Special Electric), which sold asbestos materials to Rogers. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) rendered summary judgment in favor of Rogers on the ground that her claims against Rogers were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., and (2) dismissed her claims against Special Electric for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree with the plaintiff that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether her claims against Rogers satisfied the substantial certainty exception to the exclusivity provision of the act, and we therefore reverse the summary judgment rendered in favor of Rogers. We affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against Special Electric.”)

• AC45341 - Dusto v. Rogers Corp. — Concurrence & Dissent

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law,
• Workers' Compensation Law

SC20733 - Middlebury v. Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No 34. (“In this certified appeal, the plaintiff, the town of Middlebury (town), challenges the trial court’s dismissal of the town’s administrative appeal from the decision of the labor board concluding that the town violated MERA by unilaterally changing the town’s past practice of including extra duty pay in the calculation of pension benefits for members of the named defendant, Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No. 34 (union). The town claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the labor board did not act unreasonably, illegally, arbitrarily, or in abuse of its discretion when it declined to apply the ‘‘contract coverage’’ standard, as adopted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in MV Transportation, Inc., Case No. 28-CA173726, 368 N.L.R.B. No. 66, slip op., pp. 1–2, 9–11 (September 10, 2019), and instead applied the clear and unmistakable waiver standard to the union’s claim that the town’s unilateral change to its pension plan constituted a refusal to bargain collectively in good faith in violation of MERA. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court..”)

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Employment Law

SC20677 - Ahmed v. Oak Management Corp. (“This appeal arises under highly unusual, perhaps unprecedented, circumstances, involving the application of the ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ in an arbitral proceeding but implicates settled law on the limits of judicial review of arbitral awards. The plaintiff, Iftikar Ahmed, appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his application to vacate an arbitration award rendered in favor of the defendant, Oak Management Corporation (Oak), and granting Oak’s motion to confirm the award. Ahmed contends that the trial court erroneously declined to vacate the award because the arbitrator had deprived him of the full and fair hearing to which he was entitled, in violation of governing law, public policy, and the parties’ arbitration agreement. Specifically, Ahmed contends that the arbitrator improperly applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to prevent him from asserting counterclaims or defenses, contesting Oak’s allegations, and viewing the evidence against him. After considering the grounds he has raised for vacating the award, we conclude that, notwithstanding the gravity of the arbitrator’s rulings, Ahmed has not satisfied any of the legal standards required for reversal of the judgment. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.”)

• SC20677 Dissent - Ahmed v. Oak Management Corp.

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45395 - Cooling v. Torrington (“The plaintiff, Jason Cooling, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the city of Torrington, on the plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the defendant discriminated against him on the basis of disability by, inter alia, failing to engage in a good faith interactive process to provide him with a reasonable accommodation and by subjecting him to a hostile work environment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant (1) had not engaged in the requisite good faith interactive process to discover a reasonable accommodation for his disability and (2) had subjected him to a hostile work environment. We disagree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44975 - CCI Computerworks, LLC v. Evernet Consulting, LLC (“The defendant, Evernet Consulting, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, CCI Computerworks, LLC, on the defendant’s counterclaim asserting claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and indemnification. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the agreement executed by the parties attributed liability to the defendant, rather than to the plaintiff, for unemployment taxes, plus interest and penalties, assessed on the defendant by the Department of Labor (department), or (2) in the alternative, the plaintiff was not unjustly enriched by the defendant’s payment of the unemployment taxes, interest, and penalties. We conclude that the court properly rendered judgment in the plaintiff’s favor on the defendant’s counterclaim. In addition, the plaintiff cross appeals from the judgment of the court rendered in its favor on count one of its second amended complaint asserting breach of contract. On cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied its motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of a settlement offer, (2) admitted the settlement evidence in full into the record, (3) relied on the settlement evidence to conclude that it had failed to mitigate its damages, and (4) failed to adjudicate its claim that the defendant breached the parties’ agreement by crediting certain costs against the payments that the defendant owed pursuant to the agreement. We agree with the plaintiff’s claims of error regarding the settlement evidence, but we disagree with the plaintiff’s contention that the court overlooked one of its claims. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court rendered on the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and we affirm the judgment in all other respects.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20718 - Roach v. Transwaste, Inc. (“The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to award the plaintiff, William L. Roach, lost wages in this wrongful termination action. The defendant, Transwaste, Inc., claims that the Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for remittitur. We disagree with the defendant and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45471 - Marrero v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc. (“In this employment discrimination action, the plaintiff, Janetta Marrero, claims on appeal that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., her former employer, on her complaint sounding in pregnancy discrimination and gender discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

“The undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff received multiple warnings regarding her attitude, conduct, and insubordination and, in April, 2018, received notice that, upon another incident of insubordination, her employment could be terminated. The plaintiff does not dispute that, on October 18, 2018, she criticized Berube’s management of his department and refused to leave his office for more than one hour. Consistent with the April, 2018 warning, the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment. In sum, we agree with the trial court that ‘there is a dearth of evidence, other than the plaintiff’s speculation, that her pregnancy had anything to do with her termination.’ Because the defendant presented uncontroverted evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason for its employment termination decision and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that that reason was pretextual, the court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.”

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20669, SC20674 - City of Hartford Police Department v. CHRO et al. (Administrative Appeal; Discrimination; Whether Human Rights Referee's Finding of Intentional Discrimination Was Supported by Substantial Evidence).

"On appeal, the defendants claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the referee’s determination of intentional discrimination because Phan had failed to establish either an inference of discrimination in his prima facie case or, alternatively, that the plaintiff’s proffered reasons for terminating Phan’s employment were pretextual."

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44659 - Belgada v. Hy's Livery Service, Inc. (“The plaintiffs, a group of chauffeurs who brought this class action1 complaint seeking unpaid wages, appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Hy’s Livery Service, Inc. (Hy’s); Robert L. Levine, Hy’s president; and Mathew Levine, Hy’s vice president. On appeal, the plaintiffs Mehdi Belgada, Hormoz Akhundzadeh and Daniel Dziekan, as representatives of the class, set forth three arguments in support of their claim that the court improperly resolved the legal issue, namely, whether the plaintiffs’ meal breaks were not compensable time and, consequently, improperly rendered summary judgment for the defendants. We are not persuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44554 - Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC (“Pursuant to Connecticut wage laws, an employer may claim a credit for gratuities received by service employees in the restaurant industry as a percentage of the minimum fair wage (tip credit) it would otherwise be required to pay, and the Labor Commissioner (commissioner), acting through the Department of Labor (department), is tasked with adopting regulations regarding the tip credit. See General Statutes § 31-60 (b); see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-62-E1 et seq. (March 8, 2015). The defendant, C & L Diners, LLC, appeals, and the plaintiff, Valerie Nettleton, cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff on her claims for violations of the minimum wage regulations. The court rendered summary judgment for the plaintiff on her complaint alleging that the defendant violated §§ 31-62-E3 and 31-62-E4 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies and for the defendant on its good faith defense to the plaintiff’s claim for penalty damages pursuant to General Statutes (Supp. 2016) § 31-68 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) § 31-68 (a) provides a private cause of action for a recordkeeping violation under § 31-62-E3 of the regulations and (2) the ‘side work’ performed by the plaintiff while working as a server constituted ‘nonservice’ work under § 31-62-E4 of the regulations. In her cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant established its good faith defense. We agree with the defendant’s first claim and the plaintiff’s claim and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45011 - O'Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (Employment discrimination; claim that trial court erred in affirming administrative decision of defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities; "In the present case, the Superior Court concluded that the department was not liable because the employee who created the hostile work environment, Diane Krevolin, was not the plaintiff's "supervisor" pursuant to the definition adopted by the United States Supreme Court for Title VII purposes in Vance v. Ball State University, supra, 570 U.S. 424; that is, someone "empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the [plaintiff] . . . ." Id. The court determined that because Krevolin was not a supervisor, there was consequently "no merit to the plaintiff's argument that [the commission] should have imputed liability to [the department] on the basis of a supervisor theory of liability," and because the plaintiff did not challenge the decision on any other ground, it affirmed the decision of the commission in favor of the department.

On appeal to this court, the plaintiff asks us to conclude, contrary to the determination of the Superior Court, that the Vance definition of a "supervisor" for Title VII purposes does not apply to hostile work environment claims that are brought under CFEPA. She asks us, instead, to adopt a broader definition of the term for CFEPA purposes that would include employees like Krevolin who cannot "take tangible employment actions" but nonetheless control the day-to-day conditions of their subordinate's work. We conclude that the Superior Court properly determined that the Vance definition applies to claims brought under CFEPA, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45207- Trejo v. Yale New Haven Hospital, Inc. (“The court heard oral arguments on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on October 25, 2021. On December 14, 2021, the court issued a memorandum of decision granting the defendant’s motion. In its decision, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed, as a matter of law, to meet his burden to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of his gender or sexual orientation. The court also found that, even if the plaintiff had satisfied his burden of establishing a prima facie case, the defendant presented extensive, uncontroverted evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his discharge—namely, the plaintiff’s persistent performance difficulties and low standardized exam scores—that the plaintiff could not show was pretextual. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s retaliation claim on the basis that there was no evidence that the plaintiff complained about sexual orientation or gender discrimination before he received his nonrenewal notice. The plaintiff timely appealed from the court’s judgment.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On the basis of our examination of the record, and the briefs and arguments of the parties, and applying the well established principles that govern our review of a court’s decision to grant a motion for summary judgment in cases alleging violations of the act; see Stubbs v. ICare Management, LLC, 198 Conn. App. 511, 520–22, 233 A.3d 1170 (2020); we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. See, e.g., Luth v. OEM Controls, Inc., 203 Conn. App. 673, 252 A.3d 406 (2021). Because the court’s memorandum of decision aptly addresses the plaintiff’s arguments, we adopt its thorough and well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the facts and applicable law on these issues. See Trejo v. Yale New Haven Hospital, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-19-6112326-S (December 14, 2021) (reprinted at 218 Conn. App. , A.3d ). It would serve no useful purpose to repeat the discussion contained therein. See, e.g., U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Dallas, 213 Conn. App. 483, 487, 278 A.3d 1138 (2022); Luth v. OEM Controls, Inc., supra, 203 Conn. App. 677; Phadnis v. Great Expression Dental Centers of Connecticut, P.C., 170 Conn. App. 79, 81, 153 A.3d 687 (2017).

The judgment is affirmed.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45050 - Murchison v. Waterbury (“The defendant, the city of Waterbury, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the plaintiffs, Dickie K. Murchison, Jr., and John J. Bigham, firefighters formerly employed by the defendant, terminal leave pay pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement (agreement). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to terminal leave pay because (1) the plaintiffs ‘‘retired’’ within the meaning of the terminal leave pay provision of the agreement and (2) any ambiguity in the agreement should be construed against the defendant. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20626 - Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC (“The plaintiff filed a petition for certification to appeal, which we granted, limited to the following issues: (1) 'Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the public policy contained in . . . § 31-73 (b) is inapplicable to the facts of this case and, as a matter of law, cannot form the basis for a common-law wrongful [discharge] action?’ And (2) ‘[d]id the Appellate Court correctly conclude, in the alternative, that the evidence presented at the summary judgment stage failed to support the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant actually violated the public policy contained in § 31-73 (b)?’ Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC, 338 Conn. 915, 915–16, 259 A.3d 1180 (2021). We answer both questions in the negative.”

“The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to reverse the judgment of the trial court and to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings according to law.”)

• SC20626 Dissent - Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44274 - Schimenti Construction Co., LLC v. Schimenti (“The plaintiff, Schimenti Construction Company, LLC, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Joseph Schimenti, on counts one and two of its complaint alleging breach of an employment contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in determining that continued employment of an at-will employee does not constitute consideration for a restrictive covenant. We agree with plaintiff’s claim and, therefore, reverse the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant and remand the case for further proceedings.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44321 - Horrocks v. Keepers, Inc. (“This appeal stems from a dispute between the plaintiffs, Crystal Horrocks, Yaritza Reyes, Dina Danielle Caviello, Jacqueline Green, Sugeily Ortiz and Zuleyma Bella Lopez, and the defendants, Keepers, Inc., and Joseph Regensburger, as to the proper characterization of the plaintiffs as independent contractors, instead of employees, for services rendered as exotic dancers at a gentlemen’s club owned and operated by the defendants. The defendants appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to vacate, and granting the plaintiffs’ application to confirm, arbitration awards finding that the plaintiffs were employees, not independent contractors, and awarding them damages. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• AC44321 Concurrence - Horrocks v. Keepers, Inc.

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44322 - Paniccia v. Success Village Apartments, Inc. ("In this breach of contract action, the named defendant, Success Village Apartments, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a second court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, David Paniccia, the defendant’s former employee. In 2018, following the first court trial of this matter, the court, Arnold, J., rendered judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff’s claims for breach of an employment contract, violations of General Statutes §§ 31-71b and 31-72,2 and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Thereafter, however, Judge Arnold granted the plaintiff’s motion to open and vacate the judgment because his judgment was rendered untimely pursuant to General Statutes § 51-183b, which requires that a trial court render a decision within 120 days after the completion of a civil trial.3 After conducting a second court trial in 2019, the court, Jacobs, J., rendered judgment for the plaintiff and awarded him $172,969.90 in damages, which included $11,672.46 in prejudgment interest on back wages.

On appeal, the defendant claims that Judge Arnold improperly granted the plaintiff's motion to open and vacate the 2018 judgment for the defendant. In the alternative, the defendant claims that Judge Jacobs improperly (1) relied on parol evidence rather than the employment contract in finding that the contract was valid and enforceable and (2) awarded the plaintiff prejudgment interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44824 - Fiveash v. Connecticut Conference of Municipalities

AC44824 - Fiveash v. Delong ("In these employment discrimination actions, the plaintiff, Sharon Fiveash, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendants, Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM), Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency, Inc. (CIRMA), Faith Brooks, Joseph DeLong, and Ronald W. Thomas. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the plaintiff's claims of gender discrimination and retaliation. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions