Page 31 - CLT083120

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS AUGUST 31, 2020 ¦ 31

denied the motion to substitute, reasoning that The court nonetheless found that plaintiff failed
the proceeding was rendered useless by defen- to satisfy the second requirement of construc-
dant’s death because the motion to open would tive discharge — that the environment was so
reinstate the marriage, and because defendant difficult or intolerable that a reasonable person
was dead they were bound to deny the motion to would have felt compelled to resign. The court
open. Plaintiff appealed, and the court reversed therefore upheld the Appellate Court’s decision.
the trial court’s decision. Plaintiff argued that
the trial court incorrectly concluded that open-
ing the dissolution of marriage judgment would LEGAL ETHICS AND ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

reinstate the marriage, and the court agreed, Court Upholds Trial Court’s Suspension
finding that when a dissolution is reopened for
the limited purpose of reconsideration of the of Attorney for One Year
financial orders, granting does not reinstate
the marriage, and therefore does not render the CASE: Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller
underlying action useless. COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
DOC. NO.: SC 20390
COURT OPINION BY:
LABOR LAW DATE: April 27, 2020 • PAGES: 5
Plaintiff brought a four-count presentment
Intent Requirement in Allegation of against the defendant alleging misconduct by de-
Constructive Discharge Applies Only positing personal funds into her IOLTA account
to Intent of Defendant to Create and thereafter failing to respond to disciplinary
counsel, as well as failure to appear for court
Intolerable Work Atmosphere, Not to matters and the unauthorized practice of law.
Resignation Defendant alleged racial discrimination, howev-
er the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff
and suspended defendant’s license to practice law
CASE: Karagozian v. USV Optical, Inc. for one year. Defendant appealed, and the court
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The defendant
DOC. NO.: SC 20257
COURT OPINION BY: D’Auria argued the trial court erred in denying her mo-
DATE: April 15, 2020 • PAGES: 14 tion for articulation because she was left without
Plaintiff worked as an optician manager at de- a “full and complete record” for review, however
fendant’s store, and as part of his duties was the court disagreed, finding no ambiguity in the
tasked with providing optometric assistant ser- court’s ruling. The court found no merit in the
vices to the store’s doctor of optometry. Plaintiff defendant’s racial discrimination argument, and
requested several times that he not be required affirmed the trial court’s finding.
to perform these services, citing his belief that
it violated public policy. Plaintiff was never re-
lieved of this duty and alleged he was compelled PERSONAL INJURY • ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

to resign as a result. Plaintiff then brought an Court Finds City can be Held Liable
action for constructive discharge and defendant
moved to strike, arguing defendant failed to al- for Workers’ Compensation for
lege that defendant intentionally sought to cre- Subcontractor
ate hostile conditions. The trial court granted
the motion, and citing Brittell, the Appellate CASE: Barker v. All Roofs by Dominic
Court upheld the trial court’s decision finding COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
that plaintiff failed to allege defendant intended DOC. NO.: SC 20196
to create intolerable conditions. The court dis- COURT OPINION BY: Ecker
agreed with the Appellate Court’s interpretation DATE: August 13, 2020 • PAGES: 16
of Brittell, but nonetheless upheld their decision The city of Bridgeport hired defendant All Roofs
on alternate grounds. The plaintiff argued the by Dominic to do repair work on the city’s trans-
“intent” requirement in constructive discharge fer facility. All Roofs hired defendant Howie’s
is only in regard to the creation of the intoler- Roofing as subcontractor, and an employee of
able atmosphere, not the intent to force resigna- Howie’s, the plaintiff, was injured when he fell
tion. The court agreed, finding intent only must from the roof. Plaintiff sought workers’ compen-
be shown as to the creation of the environment. sation benefits from Howie’s, All Roofs, and the

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune