10/30/2009
Below are the employment law Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2009:
-
AC29172 - Perez v. D & L Tractor Trailer School (Hostile Work Environment, Vexatious Litigation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Attorney’s Fees. “The plaintiff claims that the court (1) abused its discretion with respect to several evidentiary rulings, (2) improperly permitted the defendant’s counterclaim to go to the jury and (3) improperly calculated the attorney’s fees it awarded her. In his cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and (2) awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees.”)
-
AC29830 - State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001 (“The plaintiff, the state of Connecticut, appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying its application to vacate an arbitration award and granting the motion to confirm the award filed by the defendant, the Connecticut State Employees Association, SEIU Local 2001. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed or imperfectly execute his powers pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4). We are unable to evaluate the plaintiff’s claim because we conclude that the arbitrator’s award is ambiguous.”) 10/13/2009Comprehensive Orthopaedics & Musculoskeletal Care, LLC v. Axtmayer - SC18304 ("The sole issue on appeal is whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority in declining to award attorney’s fees pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement. The plaintiffs, Comprehensive Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Care, LLC (Comprehensive), and certain physician members of Comprehensive, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate in part the arbitration award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4), because it concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by determining that Comprehensive did not 'prevail' on its underlying restrictive covenant claim. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by declining to award attorney’s fees because Comprehensive 'prevailed' under Connecticut law on its underlying claim, and, therefore, the arbitration agreement required the arbitrator to award attorney’s fees.")
10/1/2009
Below is the employment law Appellate Court opinion issued in September 2009:
-
AC29702 - State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001 (“The plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application to vacate an arbitration award. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4). We conclude that the court improperly failed to vacate the award with respect to the arbitrator’s finding in part two of the award that the demotion of the employee at issue cannot be extended in perpetuity and with respect to part three of the award.”) 9/10/2009
Saunders v. Firtel - SC18309 (Employment; recovering unpaid wages and double damages pursuant to statute (§§ 31-71c and § 31-72); definition of employee; breach of contract; dissolution of limited liability company; “On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) invoked § 31-72 in awarding wages to the plaintiff because the plaintiff was not an ‘employee’ of Adco within the meaning of § 31-72, (2) calculated the amount of wages awarded to the plaintiff for 2004 by failing to prorate the plaintiff’s salary on the basis of the number of months that he had worked in that year, (3) awarded double damages to the plaintiff pursuant to § 31-72, and (4) ordered the dissolution of Barbur.”)
9/2/2009
Below are the employment law Appellate Court opinions issued in August 2009:
-
AC29994 — Duart v. Department of Correction (“The plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after it denied her motion for a new trial, in which she alleged that the defendant, the department of correction, engaged in discovery misconduct. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court, in denying the motion, relied on an improper standard when it concluded that she was required to show that the outcome of the trial would have been different without the defendant’s alleged discovery misconduct.”)
-
AC30183 — Prioleau v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (“The plaintiff… appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from a decision of the defendant commission on human rights and opportunities (commission). The commission determined that there was no reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory or retaliatory practices had been committed and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without a hearing. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the commission applied the proper legal standard to his claims and (2) the commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.”)
-
AC29034 — Ayantola v. Board of Trustees of Technical Colleges (“The plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the Board of Trustees of Technical Colleges, in this action to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of General Statutes § 46a-60. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims, (2) improperly concluded that he did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation and (3) improperly concluded that the defendant did not retaliate against the him in violation of § 46a-60 (a) (4).”) 7/31/2009
-
AC28151 - Morgan v. Bubar (“Here, the questions presented are whether a right to pursue a defamation action is subordinate to the right to complain through appropriate administrative channels and whether state employees may be sued for damages for failing to investigate such complaints. The defendants…appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment. The defendants claim that the court improperly denied their motion for summary judgment, which claimed (1) that Bubar was entitled to absolute immunity and (2) that Carini and Castronova were entitled to qualified immunity.”)
-
AC29740 - Sophia v. Danbury (“In this action claiming retaliation by her employer, the plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after it denied her motion in arrest of judgment or to set aside the verdict in favor of the defendant city of Danbury. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly instructed the jury by including elements of constructive discharge within the retaliation claim.”)
-
AC30202 - Brown v. Gibson & Behman, P.C. [Motion to vacate arbitration award] ("The plaintiff, an attorney, was hired by the defendant, a law firm, pursuant to a written employment contract. Subsequently, the written employment contract was modified orally to provide that additional compensation would be paid to the plaintiff as fees were generated on the matters that he referred to the defendant. While employed by the defendant, the plaintiff referred the Wolcott matter, which is presently at issue, to the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently left the employ of the defendant and returned to his former law firm…
"The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant pursuant to the oral agreement for the moneys he was owed for the referral of the Wolcott matter.") 7/15/2009
Conboy v. State - SC17798 (Class action to recover damages pursuant to §31-51q; Sovereign immunity; "This case concerns the proper procedure for a trial court to employ in deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when jurisdictional facts are disputed by the parties.") 6/30/2009
-
AC29572 - Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall (“The plaintiffs…appeal from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant…in an action for the enforcement of a nonsolicitation agreement in an employment contract. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined that the nonsolicitation agreement was unenforceable and meaningless.”) 6/19/2009
Garcia v. Hartford - SC18205 ( Mandamus; Whether retiree is employee under parties' collective bargaining agreement; employee, defined; "The sole issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, Edwin Garcia, a retired police officer, is required to seek relief through the grievance procedures under the collective bargaining agreement (agreement) between the named defendant, the city of Hartford, and the Hartford police union (union) before he can bring a mandamus action to compel the defendant to comply with a provision in that agreement allowing the defendant’s employees to trade in accumulated unused sick time in order to increase their monthly pension benefits.")
4/27/2009
Lyon v. Jones (SC18096) (Employment discrimination; collateral estoppel; sovereign immunity; mootness; "Plaintiff challenges the Appellate Court's determination that she was required to obtain authorization from either the claims commissioner or the General Assembly in order to pursue her claims under §46a-60 (a)(1). The plaintiff also asserts that the Appellate Court improperly concluded §46a-99 does not constitute a waiver of the state's sovereign immunity for suits in damages."; "...[D]efendants argued that the plaintiff's entire appeal was moot because the trial court's finding of collateral estoppel regarding the claims brought under §46a-70 provided an independently sufficient, unchallenged alternate ground supporting the trial court's decision.")
4/3/2009
Barton v. Bristol - SC17953 ("The plaintiff…brought this action against the defendants…alleging that the city and DiVenere had violated General Statutes § 7-294aa (a) by refusing to restore the plaintiff to his position on the Bristol police department after he had resigned from his employment in order to serve temporarily in peacekeeping operations in the country of Iraq. The plaintiff further alleged that the union had made negligent representations to him regarding his rights under § 7-294aa.") 2/9/2009
Honulik v. Greenwich- SC18046 ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the collective bargaining agreement...between the ...town of Greenwich... and the Silver Shield Association, the union representing the town's police officers...governs the promotion to the position of police captain, which is a position outside the bargaining unit, and requires that the candidate with the highest assessment score on a promotional examination be awarded the promotion.")
12/19/2008
Weems v. Citigroup, Inc. - SC17967 ("In this case, which comes to us upon our acceptance of a certified question of law from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (District Court) pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199b (d), we consider whether the forfeiture provisions of three different capital accumulation plans (plans) that the named defendant, Citigroup, Inc., and its defendant subsidiaries, have offered to their employees both through voluntary payroll deductions (payroll plan) and for the payment of bonuses (bonus plan), violate Connecticut's wage statutes, General Statutes § 31-71a et seq.") 12/1/2008Below is a list of employment law Appellate Court opinions issued in November 2008:
- AC28571 - AFSCME, Council 4, AFL-CIO, Local 1303-194 v. Westport (“In this case, the plaintiff union contests the denial of its application to vacate the remedial order of an arbitral panel that overturned a union member's discharge but ordered his demotion instead of reinstating him to his former position of employment with the defendant town.”)
- AC28260 - Ziotas v. Reardon Law Firm, P.C. (“The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) looked beyond the four corners of a written employment contract between the parties, (2) construed the written stipulation between the parties and (3) found that the defendant had breached the employment contract.”)
11/3/2008
Stokes v. Norwich Taxi, LLC - SC18059 (Action to recover wages; Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.); state wage statutes (§§ 31-68 and 31-72); claim that defendants taxicab company and its owners had failed to pay plaintiff salaried employee for working overtime hours; whether trial court properly structured jury instructions and interrogatories with respect to method of calculating overtime pay; claim that federal act preempted state wage statutes; claim that trial court improperly refused to allow defendants to cross-examine plaintiff as to his hours of work before becoming salaried employee; whether trial court abused discretion in precluding admission of defendants' exhibit showing alternate calculation of hours plaintiff had worked; claim that trial court improperly precluded defendants from cross-examining plaintiff as to his employment status after leaving defendants' company; whether trial court properly awarded plaintiff supplemental attorney's fees; claim that trial court improperly based calculation of hourly rate for plaintiff's counsel on local market rate.) 10/31/2008
Below is a list of employment law Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2008:
-
AC29093 - Joyner v. Simkins Industries, Inc. ("In this wrongful discharge action, we must determine whether the defendant, Simkins Industries, Inc., violated a public policy underlying the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it discharged the plaintiff, Nethia Joyner, for failing to submit to a return to work medical examination.")
-
AC29022 - O'Donnell v. Waterbury ("The defendants, the city of Waterbury (city) and the Waterbury retirement board (board), appeal from the Superior Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff, retired police Officer Kevin V. O'Donnell, claiming that the court improperly found that the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the police union requires the board to complete a whole person disability evaluation and that the board abused its discretion when it denied O'Donnell a continuance to seek further medical evaluations.") 10/8/2008
Vollemans v. Wallingford SC17974 (Plaintiff alleged his employment was terminated because of his age in violation of CT Fair Employment Practices Act; 1. In interpreting . . . § 46a-82 (e), did the Appellate Court properly hold that the statute of limitations began to run on the last day the plaintiff worked?[and] 2. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that summary judgment was inappropriate because (a) there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the notice of termination and (b) there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext?’’ 7/28/2008
Office of Labor Relations v. New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, AFL-CIO- SC17962 (Arbitration; application to vacate arbitration award granting relief to all employees covered under collective bargaining agreement after three individual grievants sought holiday pay rate; whether there was a violation of § 52-418 (a) (4); whether trial court improperly concluded that arbitrator had not exceeded authority by issuing award outside scope of submission; de novo review; restricted and unrestricted submissions, discussed)
7/24/2008
McCann v. Dept. of Environmental Protection SC 18102
(Arbitration; application to vacate arbitration award; state issued laptop computer used for personal use; termination challenged via arbitration as per terms of collective bargaining agreement; whether trial court improperly determined that the arbitrator had: (1) failed to consider all relevant evidence in violation of § 52-418 (a) (3); (2)misconstrued the evidence and made factual errors; and (3) ‘‘exceeded [his] powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.’’ General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4))
6/18/2008
State v. Lynch - SC17996 (Failure to pay wages; claim by defendant that trial court improperly denied request to charge jury that he had agreement with employees whereby they agreed to defer receipt of wages due until company could obtain sufficient revenue to pay them; claim that agreement absolved defendant of criminal liability under statute (§ 31-71b) prohibiting withholding of wages due;conclusion that agreement was contrary to public policy and was not valid defense to crime of failure to pay wages). 5/29/2008
State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001 - SC17937 (Arbitration; application by plaintiff state to vacate arbitration award in favor of defendant state employees association, which had filed grievance on behalf of employee of department of correction; whether arbitrator exceeded power in manifest disregard of the law). 5/12/2008
McWeeny v. City of Hartford et al. - SC17888 (Employment Discrimination; Whether the recipient of a surviving spouse pension allowance had standing to file a discrimination complaint against his deceased spouse's former employer after the employer terminated the allowance because the recipient had remarried. [Docket Summary] 5/2/2008Cosgrove v. Waterbury - SC17999 [Pensions; appeal by plaintiff police officer from decision of defendant retirement board awarding him disability pension that was equal to amount that he would have been entitled to receive as vested service pension pursuant to collective bargaining agreement; claim that pension award improperly failed to compensate plaintiff for his disability; whether trial court properly concluded that board's decision was not unlawful, arbitrary or abuse of its discretion] [docket summary]
O'Connor v. Waterbury - SC18003 [Pensions; appeal by plaintiff police officer from decision of defendant retirement board awarding him disability pension that was equal to amount that he would have been entitled to receive as vested service pension pursuant to collective bargaining agreement; claim that pension award improperly failed to compensate plaintiff for his orthopedic and heart and hypertension disabilities; whether trial court properly concluded that board's decision was not unlawful, arbitrary or abuse of its discretion; whether board properly considered proffered medical evidence pertaining to plaintiff's disabilities in determining disability pension award] [docket summary] 4/14/2008
Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican - SC17899 [Vexatious Litigation; Whether Prejudgment Remedy Application Constitutes a Civil Action for Purposes of a Subsequent Claim for Vexatious Litigation.] 4/7/2008Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. - SC18025 [Employment discrimination; summary judgment; whether trial court applied an improper standard of proof in resolving plaintiff's disparate treatment claim; whether defendant employer improperly failed to engage in an "interactive process" with plaintiff to discuss reasonable accommodations for his disability] [docket summary]
2/27/2008
Ravetto v.Triton Thalassic Technologies, Inc - SC17792 (Employment; nonpayment of wages; action to recover double damages and attorney's fees pursuant to statute (§31-72) for employer's nonpayment of wages) [docket summary]
1/18/2008
There was one Connecticut Supreme Court opinion released today:
-
Bloomfield v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Connecticut Independent Police Union, Local 14 - SC17862 (Arbitration; subject matter jurisdiction; whether the thirty day limitations period of C.G.S. section 52-420(b) applies to an application to vacate an arbitration award based solely on the common-law ground that the award violates public policy.)
12/17/2007
There was one Connecticut Supreme Court opinion released today:
-
Provencher v. Enfield - SC17793 (Declaratory judgment; writ of mandamus; statutory construction - three-pronged Napoletano test; whether CGS §22-331 (a) implicitly confers a private cause of action affording declaratory relief for the town's failure to credit the plaintiff with certain years of service for purposes of the town's pension plan).
|
|
|
|