Page 34 - CLT102620
P. 34
34 ¦ OCTOBER 26, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
ing the proceedings of a medical review commit- Defendant hired plaintiff as a transportation
tee engaged in a peer review of the quality of coordinator. She reported to her supervisor
care and services performed by plaintiff. There- that she had seen another employee’s bus op-
fore, the court sustained defendants’ objections. erating outside areas to which it had been as-
signed. Plaintiff believed that the other em-
ployee had misused the bus for unauthorized
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION activities. Plaintiff ’s supervisor was very upset
Court Granted in Part Defendants’ and later told her not to report to work. Plain-
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Writ of tiff had to report to defendant’s human re-
sources department and was reprimanded for
Mandamus Count following the other employee. Several months
later, plaintiff was reprimanded for yelling at
CASE: Dingle v. City of Stamford another employee and, following defendant’s
COURT: Waterbury J.D., Complex Litigation Docket investigation, plaintiff was fired. She sued de-
DOC. NO.: CV-18-6044501 fendant for illegal retaliation. Defendant filed
COURT OPINION BY: Bellis a motion for summary judgment and the court
DATE: September 30, 2020 • PAGES: 20 denied it. The court found that plaintiff ’s re-
port of another employee misusing public re-
Plaintiffs sued the city of Stamford and the city’s sources was a matter of public concern as re-
board of fire commissioners, alleging that they quired by the illegal retaliation statute. The
suffered economic damages resulting from their court also held that there was at least some evi-
loss of potential employment promotions and se- dence of a causal nexus between plaintiff ’s re-
niority. According to plaintiffs, they were eligible port and adverse employment actions: her last
for promotions within the fire department but day of employment was less than one month
there were several “artificial ties” that misrepre- after her report. There was a genuine issue
sented their relative excellence to the appointing of fact concerning whether plaintiff ’s report
authorities. Therefore, they were passed over for was true or made with an honest belief that
a promotion in favor of less qualified candidates. it was true, because the court reasoned that a
Defendants filed a motion to strike and the court reasonable employer would generally want an
granted in part. Defendants first moved to strike employee to make a report like this. Lastly,
on the basis that plaintiffs did not join indispens- the court held there was an issue as to whether
able parties, i.e. other people that were currently defendant fired plaintiff for non-retaliatory
on the list for promotion. The court denied their reasons, noting the close proximity in time to
motion on the grounds that defendants did not the report and the termination.
adhere to the section of the Practice Book that re-
quired them to provide the name and residence of
the missing parties. However, the court granted
defendants’ motion as to count three, writ of man- INSURANCE LITIGATION
damus. Plaintiffs alleged a mandamus cause of Defendants’ Motion to Strike in
action against the city alone; given that the law re-
garding writ of mandamus requires that this claim
be brought against a particular city employee or Insurance Dispute Granted in Part
the relevant board, the court granted defendants’ CASE: Gordon v. CSA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
motion to strike this count. The court also grant- COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
ed defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ prayers DOC. NO.: CV-20-6124754
for relief for attorney fees and punitive damages. COURT OPINION BY: Taylor
DATE: October 07, 2020 • PAGES: 7
Plaintiffs claimed defendants failed to pay for
Defendant’s Motion for Summary water damage under the terms of a home insur-
Judgment Denied in Illegal Retaliation ance policy and filed a complaint alleging sev-
Case eral counts. Defendants filed a motion to strike
counts two through four and the court granted
the motion in part. The court granted defen-
CASE: Belinsky v. Town of Monroe dants’ motion as to count three, which alleged
COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport negligence by defendants’ breach of its duty to
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6085544
COURT OPINION BY: Cordani investigate, adjust, and administer plaintiff’s in-
DATE: October 06, 2020 • PAGES: 14 surance claims under the contract for which she
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune
