Page 37 - CLT041221

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS APRIL 12, 2021 ¦ 37

constitutional claims was permitted to go for- agreed with defendants that the court lacked
ward, the court would not apply qualified immu- jurisdiction over plaintiff ’s request for a de-
nity at this point. claratory judgment invalidating the Connecti-
cut statute under the Eleventh Amendment,
as there was no ongoing violation of federal
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW • law. Defendants stopped collecting dues imme-
CIVIL PROCEDURE • LABOR LAW diately after the Janus decision and refunded

Mootness Prohibits Recovery of all past dues up to the statute of limitations.
Defendants also argued that they cannot be
Attorneys’ Fees held liable for monetary judgment because
they acted in good faith. The court agreed with
CASE: Lamberty v. Connecticut State Police Union defendants that they had relied on controlling
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut Supreme Court precedent and could not have
DOC. NO.: 3:15-cv-00378 known if or when the law would change.
COURT OPINION BY: Bolden
DATE: March 26, 2021 • PAGES: 35
CONTRACTS • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Plaintiffs are current and former Connecticut
state troopers; they alleged that defendants

injured them by deducting agency fees from Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss
their pay without providing pre-collection no- Granted in Part and Denied in Part in
tice, thus violating their rights under the First Employment Litigation Suit
and Fourteenth Amendments. While the case
was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
Janus v. AFSCME, holding that it was imper- CASE: Parimal v. Manitex Int’l, Inc.
missible under the First Amendment to with- COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-01910
hold fair share fees from public employees COURT OPINION BY: Shea
covered by collective bargaining agreements. DATE: March 25, 2021 • PAGES: 23
Plaintiffs moved to collect attorneys’ fees and Plaintiff was a former employee of defendant
expenses on the ground that they were the pre- and sought damages for breach of contract,
vailing party. The Second Circuit denied the breach of the implied covenant of good faith
motion and remanded to this court for further and fair dealing, intentional and negligent
proceedings. Defendants moved to dismiss the misrepresentations, wrongful termination of
case, and plaintiffs moved for reconsideration. employment, and unfair trade practices. De-
Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground fendant filed a partial motion to dismiss. The
of mootness. Defendants claimed that with- court granted the motion with regards to the
holding has stopped post-Janus and that plain- Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act viola-
tiffs do not allege that defendants are harming tion, but denied for the promissory estoppel,
them. Furthermore, defendants point to other breach of implied covenant and food faith and
cases that have been considered moot post-Ja- fair dealing, and wrongful termination. Plain-
nus. Plaintiffs argued that the claims were not tiff had a lucrative offer to work with a differ-
moot, but that Janus only governed the adjudi- ent company, but defendant matched the offer.
cation and that the issue remains live because Plaintiff signed the offer letter, which was
the Connecticut statute still authorizes agen- drafted by defendant. Once plaintiff rejected
cy fees. The court noted that defendants had the offer with the other company, defendant
changed their policy and argued that plaintiffs breached several promises made to plaintiff
did not show that they continue to have legally including a success fee, bonus, relocation ex-
cognizable interests. Two of the plaintiffs were penses, and more. Plaintiff also raised concerns
retired and would not be subject to collection about accounting practices of the company
of fees, and their past agency fees withdraw- that were not in line with generally accepted
als were reimbursed. With regard to the cur- accounting principles. The CEO and CFO ad-
rently employed employees, the court noted vised plaintiff to taper the practices gradually;
that the agency stopped collecting agency fees. when plaintiff refused to taper off the inappro-
Citing Janus, the court maintained that there priate accounting practices rather than imme-
is no longer a dispute as to whether a public diately apply, he was fired. Defendant moved to
sector union can collect agency fees. The court dismiss plaintiff ’s wrongful termination claim
held that the claims were moot. The court also for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune