Page 39 - CLT010421

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JANUARY 4, 2021 ¦ 39

American man, was terminated from his employ- The court granted in part and denied in part a
ment with defendant Grocery Haulers, Inc. In his motion to dismiss a complaint. Five individuals
complaint, he alleged Grocery Haulers discrimi- housed as patients in two Connecticut inpatient
nated against him on the basis of his race, made mental hospitals sued the governor and other state
negligent representations to him, and caused him officials who had operational authority over the
to detrimentally rely on defendant’s misrepresen- hospitals, alleging the defendants had not taken
tations. Grocery Haulers moved to dismiss the adequate measures to protect the plaintiffs and
negligent misrepresentation and promissory es- other similarly situated persons from COVID-
toppel claims. The employer reasoned that Lee’s 19 exposure. The suit was filed under the federal
employment was at-will, as was made clear in the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal Re-
employee handbook. Thus, Lee’s claims could habilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and 28 U.S.C.
survive only if he alleged a representation that 2241. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive
could reasonably negate the at-will nature of his relief and habeas corpus relief. Defendants moved
employment. In responsive affidavit, Lee averred to dismiss. They asked the court to abstain, under
that the company’s security director had told him primary jurisdiction and Colorado River doctrines.
he could only be fired after a performance im- They also contended that plaintiffs had not ex-
provement plan had been established and after hausted state remedies before seeking habeas re-
Lee failed to meet the plan requirements. The lief. The court granted in part and denied in part
district court granted the motion as to the neg- the motion. The court found that abstention was
ligent misrepresentation claim but denied it as to not appropriate but agreed that plaintiffs’ failure
the promissory estoppel claim. As to the misrep- to exhaust remedies before filing a habeas corpus
resentation claim, the court declined to consider petition should not be excused. First, as to whether
factual allegations that were stated in the affidavit considerations of primary jurisdiction should be
but not in the original complaint. It is established applied, the court was not persuaded that the is-
law that a plaintiff may not amend a complaint sues in this case should necessarily be addressed at
through new allegations or pleadings. There were the outset by state health care agencies. The task
no other allegations that met the heightened of assessing the plaintiffs’ claims required deter-
pleading requirements for complaints of negli- mining whether their fundamental constitutional
gent misrepresentation. But as to the promissory rights had been violated. That question could
estoppel claim, Lee alleged that the employer had only be answered through consideration of both
orally represented to him that a policy existed case law interpreting the Constitution and facts
whereby he would not be discharged from em- relevant to what constitutes accepted professional
ployment without the application of a progressive judgment, practice, or standards. The defendants’
disciplinary policy including implementation of a position would would effectively erect an exhaus-
performance improvement plan prior to termina- tion requirement for all claims involving complex
tion of employment. Further, he alleged, he relied or technical facts, regardless of whether the claims
on those oral statements. Those statements that involved questions of constitutionally protected in-
Grocery Haulers would not discharge Lee with- dividual rights. Next, the court found that absten-
out application of a progressive disciplinary poli- tion under Colorado River principles was not war-
cy were sufficiently promissory, clear, and definite ranted. Defendants pointed to a state-court case
to state a claim for promissory estoppel. where the plaintiffs were seeking forms of relief
similar to those sought in this case. Only two of
the six factors commonly found to warrant absten-
HEALTH CARE LAW • GOVERNMENT tion under Colorado River seemed to weigh in de-

Dismissal of State Hospital Patients’ fendants’ favor, and neither was enough to justify
Lawsuit Not Warranted Under Either abstention. Under circuit case law, Colorado River
abstention is disfavored. Only the clearest of justi-
fications will warrant dismissal. In this case, there
Primary Jurisdiction or Colorado River was no clear risk of piecemeal legislation, and fed-
Doctrines eral law was likely to be determinative. Abstention
was not warranted. Finally, regarding the habeas
CASE: Wilkes v. Lamont claim, the court was not persuaded that Connecti-
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut cut statutes left the plaintiffs without an adequate
DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-00594
COURT OPINION BY: Hall remedy. The court concluded that their failure to
DATE: December 18, 2020 • PAGES: 21 seek relief in state court should not be excused.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune