Page 38 - CLT041221

38 ¦ APRIL 12, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

Manitex was not “at home” in Connecticut On February 3, 2020, defendant was sen-
and that the long-arm statute does not apply tenced to 46 months in prison after pleading
since the wrongful termination claim does not guilty to possession with intent to distribute
arise out of business or tortious conduct. The cocaine and unlawful possession of a firearm
court held that it was appropriate to hear the by a felon. Defendant moved for compassion-
wrongful termination claim because it shared ate release and an order to serve the remain-
a common nucleus with the breach of con- der of his sentence on home confinement.
tract claim, mainly that the facts underlying The court granted his motion. Defendant ar-
both claims derived from plaintiff ’s employ- gued that his medical conditions, including
ment with defendant. Plaintiff asserted that he obesity and an unspecified circulatory system
now is maintaining two residences, and his wife disorder, coupled with the inadequate medi-
left her job, based on relying on promises that cal care he was receiving in custody, created
defendant had made. Defendant claimed that extraordinary and compelling circumstances
the promissory estoppel claim was insufficient that justified his release. The court first noted
because, under Connecticut law, any reliance that all of defendant’s convictions in the last
on a binding contract would make a promis- ten years included nonviolent offenses, and he
sory estoppel claim insufficient. The court as- had a perfect disciplinary record during his
serted that plaintiff had made a sufficient case incarceration. At the time of the opinion, de-
because he had asserted this claim in the event fendant had served 21 months of his sentence,
the promises that formed the contract were ei- but as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, he
ther too indefinite or if the contract failed for had to spend 23 hours a day alone in his cell.
lack of consideration. Plaintiff also claimed The court also reasoned that there did not ap-
that he suffered damages because of business pear to be any significant deterrence advan-
practices conducted in bad faith. Defendant tage to keeping defendant in prison versus
moved to dismiss this count because plaintiff putting him on home confinement. Therefore,
did not assert that his compensation was con- given all the factors above, the court granted
trary to public policy. Plaintiff replied that a defendant’s motion for sentence reduction.
violation of public policy was not a required
element for this claim. The court agreed with EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
plaintiff that his allegations were sufficient be-
cause plaintiff and defendant were parties to a
contract, plaintiff was injured, and defendant Court Granted Defendants’ Motion to
injured plaintiff by acting in bad faith. The Dismiss in Employment Law Case
court, however, agreed with defendant that
the CUTPA claim failed. Defendant claimed CASE: Anderson v. Lewis
that the count should be dismissed because the COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
employer-employee relationship does not fall DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-00370
COURT OPINION BY: Bolden
within the definition of trade or commerce. The DATE: March 30, 2021 • PAGES: 20
court cited Connecticut caselaw which makes Plaintiff, a 49-year-old African American fe-
clear that these relationships do not give rise to male, was employed by the Department of So-
a CUTPA claim. cial Services from around 2012 until May 25,
2018, when she was fired. Over the course of
CRIMINAL APPEALS several years, defendant Lewis, also employed
with DSS, subjected plaintiff to numerous in-
stances of unwanted touching such as touch-
Court Granted Defendant’s Motion for ing her butt, snapping her bra strap, and mak-
Sentence Reduction Given Defendant’s ing numerous unwanted comments. Plaintiff
Risk of COVID-19 and Having Served made several complaints but nothing was
Over 60 Percent of His Sentence done. On March 22, 2018, defendant Lewis
choked plaintiff in the elevator. She filed a
complaint the next day with HR and the po-
CASE: United States v. Nieves-Feliciano lice. She was fired on May 25, 2018, alleg-
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut edly because she misrepresented facts about
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cr-135
COURT OPINION BY: Arterton the choking. Plaintiff sued defendants in a
DATE: March 29, 2021 • PAGES: 9 multi-count complaint. Defendants moved

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune