Page 35 - CLT083120

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS AUGUST 31, 2020 ¦ 35

important public policy. Since 1973, Hartford for real estate agents in Connecticut. However,
has been under a federal consent decree obli- their relationship changed over time. Defen-
gating its police officers to refrain from using dants demanded that plaintiff perform several
racial epithets. Lanza’s reinstatement violates duties that were outside the scope of his respon-
that policy. If Hartford were permitted to uni- sibilities as a real estate agent, including clean-
laterally circumvent that decree by agreeing to ing the office every weekend for six months, as
a collective bargaining agreement allowing for a punishment for allegedly untidy practices.
the reinstatement of police officers who vio- These and other demands placed on plaintiff
late the terms of the decree, the public policy created an employer-employee relationship,
requiring obedience to court orders would be even if that was not defendants’ intent. Plain-
meaningless. Lanza’s termination is necessary tiff was thus entitled to the commissions owed
to vindicate the plain terms and underlying him, as wages, plus interest, costs, and attorney
purpose of the consent decree. Reinstating fees. Defendants’ claims of damages suffered
an officer who has expressed the view that he due to plaintiff ’s conduct were unsupported by
should not be handcuffed or arrested because the evidence.
he is not a “nigger” so seriously undermines
the purpose of the decree that nothing less
than termination is necessary. FEE DISPUTES

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION • Court Issues Partial Award of
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES Attorneys’ Fees Under CUTPA

Real Estate Agent Treated As Employee CASE: Pointe Residential Builders BH, LLC v. TPM Constr.
and Owed Unpaid Wages Group, LLC
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
DOC. NO.: CV 18-6037047
COURT OPINION BY: Krumeich
CASE: Lockhart v. NAI Elite, LLC DATE: August 07, 2020 • PAGES: 4
COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
DOC. NO.: CV18-6098616 Plaintiff had previously succeeded against de-
COURT OPINION BY: Taylor fendant on a Connecticut Unfair Trade Practic-
DATE: August 05, 2020 • PAGES: 27 es Act violation claim, and brought an affidavit
The court rendered judgment in favor of plain- seeking counsel fees. The court found the calcu-
tiff on both his own claims and defendants’ lation of attorney fees for one of the counsels
counterclaims, finding it undisputed that he was too vague, and they could not determine the
was owed unpaid commissions, and that de- reasonableness of the charges without more in-
fendants failed to adduce evidence to sup- formation. The court found the other attorneys’
port their claims of offset. Defendants are in fees were reasonable given the information pre-
the business of commercial real estate sales sented. The court issued a partial award of the
and leasing. They contracted with plaintiff fees requested.
to work for them as a commercial real estate
agent. Their relationship was not a happy one,
and plaintiff left a year and a half later. After LEGAL ETHICS AND ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

leaving defendants’ employ, plaintiff sued them Court Finds Loan Modification Services
for unpaid wages, including commissions, and Did Not Constitute Unauthorized Legal
unpaid minimum and overtime wages. Defen- Representation
dants asserted first that plaintiff was an inde-
pendent contractor, and not an employee. Sec-
ond, although defendants acknowledged that CASE: Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Pedroso
they owed plaintiff $32,757.50 in commissions, COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport
they argued that plaintiff ’s breach of his ob- DOC. NO.: CV-19-6086569-S
ligations under both his independent contrac- COURT OPINION BY: Stevens
tor agreement and termination agreement cost DATE: August 06, 2020 • PAGES: 12
defendants far more than that amount in dam- Plaintiff brought a presentment alleging de-
ages. The court acknowledged that the parties fendant agreed to provide legal services in
initially agreed that plaintiff would work as Connecticut, even though he was not licensed
an independent contractor, which is the norm to practice law in Connecticut, in violation of

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune