Page 39 - CLT032320

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS MARCH 23, 2020 ¦ 39

“object” sprayed from the stage, which was ex- intracorporate communication privilege, but
pressly excluded from the policy coverage. The that plaintiff pled enough facts to show mal-
bar’s owner sent a letter to the court attaching ice because the employer was reckless in re-
a dictionary definition of “object,” which the fusing to hear defendant’s side of the story.
court treated as a motion to reconsider, and The court denied the motion to dismiss some
the court then denied the motion. The letter defamation complaints, but limited the scope
mentioned that “object” on dictionary.com to specific communications. The court grant-
was defined as “anything tangible and rela- ed dismissal on claims of false light, breach
tively stable in form,” but the court found it of contract, breach of good faith and fair
was “stable in form” enough to form a puddle dealings, wrongful discharge, and intention-
on the dance floor wherein a patron slipped. al infliction of emotional distress. The court
The court denied the motion. denied the motion on negligent infliction of
emotional distress.

PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCTS LIABILITY

Court Denies Dismissal For Defamation Court Grants Motion to Dismiss in
In Sexual Harassment / Sexual Product Liability Action
Discrimination Case
CASE: Doe v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
CASE: Bailey v. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut DOC. NO.: 3:18-CV-000352
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-00671
COURT OPINION BY: Bryant COURT OPINION BY: Dooley
DATE: March 11, 2020 • PAGES: 18
DATE: March 06, 2020 • PAGES: 23
Defendants manufacture a Class-III FDA-ap-
Plaintiff was employed as a news producer proved intraocular lens, Trulign, for the treat-
with the defendant. Plaintiff went out on a ment of cataracts. Plaintiff had two cataract
date with one of the reporters who was al- surgeries in which defendant’s lenses were
legedly flirtatious. Plaintiff attempted to kiss implanted. Plaintiff suffered complications
the reporter who expressed hesitation. The
reporter then made a complaint to human after surgery from a post-operative complica-
resources. After a hearing where plaintiff tion unique to the Trulign lens called “Z-syn-
alleged HR manager refused to hear plain- drome,” resulting in additional surgeries and
tiff ’s version of the events, the plaintiff was treatment and significant vision impairment.
moved to a different show where he had an- Plaintiffs allege defendant knew the risk of
other allegedly consensual encounter with Z-syndrome posed by the lenses while in de-
a different coworker. This coworker also al- velopment, but made false claims and misrep-
leged unwanted physical contact, and plain- resentations to the FDA to acquire approval.
tiff again was unable to explain or show text Plaintiffs brought a products liability claim
exchanges to HR manager that favored his against defendants for the lenses, and defen-
version of the story. Plaintiff was ultimate- dants filed a motion to dismiss. Defendants
ly terminated, and his reputation damaged argued the plaintiff ’s fraudulent omission,
after several employees spread information negligent misrepresentation, and fraud claims
about his termination to various other news were barred by the Connecticut Product Li-
affiliates, preventing him from getting future ability Act because they are common law
employment. Plaintiff brought a complaint causes of action, and the court agreed. Defen-
with 12 counts, including gender discrimina- dants also argued, and the court agreed, that
tion, retaliation, defamation, and negligent the claims were preempted by the Medical
and intentional infliction of emotional dis- Device Amendments to the Food, Drug and
tress, and defendants filed a motion to dis- Cosmetic Act. The court granted the motion
miss. As to defamation, defendant argued to dismiss. Plaintiff also filed a motion for
they could not be held liable for non-manag- leave to amend, however the court denied the
er statements or opinions. The court found motion finding that the case had been pend-
that the statements made by the accusers ing for two and a half years and any further
were privileged pursuant to the doctrine of amendments would be futile.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune