Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant, sustained a compensable injury to his lumbar spine in 1994 while working. He continued to work until his voluntary retirement in 2003, after which his condition worsened, leading to further medical treatment and surgery in 2013. In 2015, the plaintiff sought total incapacity benefits retroactive to his retirement. The workers’ compensation commissioner awarded him benefits starting from December 30, 2017, and for a three-month period following his 2013 surgery, but not from his retirement date in 2003.The defendant appealed to the Compensation Review Board, arguing that the commissioner misapplied the law by awarding benefits after unauthorized medical treatment and to a voluntarily retired claimant. The board affirmed the commissioner’s decision, finding the award of benefits appropriate under the statute.The defendant then appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the board’s decision. The Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiff was not eligible for total incapacity benefits because his incapacity occurred after his voluntary retirement and he had no intention of returning to the workforce.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that under the plain language of General Statutes § 31-307 (a), a claimant who sustains a compensable workplace injury is eligible for total incapacity benefits regardless of whether the incapacity occurs before or after voluntary retirement. The court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment and remanded the case for consideration of the defendant’s alternative claim regarding the necessity and availability of the plaintiff’s 2013 surgery. View "Cochran v. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

The case involves a plaintiff, the surviving spouse of a decedent who was employed by the Stamford Police Department. The decedent sustained injuries that led to a significant loss of vision, and he received total incapacity benefits under Connecticut General Statutes § 31-307 (c) due to his permanent and total loss of sight. The plaintiff sought permanent partial disability benefits under § 31-308 (b) after the decedent's death, arguing that his entitlement to these benefits had vested during his lifetime.The administrative law judge denied the plaintiff's claim for permanent partial disability benefits, concluding that although the decedent's condition was permanent, the defendants were entitled to a credit for the total incapacity benefits already paid, which exceeded the amount of the claimed permanency benefits. The Compensation Review Board affirmed this decision, stating that the decedent had not reached maximum medical improvement during his lifetime, a necessary condition for the vesting of permanency benefits under § 31-308 (b).The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Compensation Review Board. The court held that a finding of a permanent injury under § 31-307 (c) does not automatically entitle a claimant to permanency benefits under § 31-308 (b) without a specific finding of maximum medical improvement or an agreement between the parties establishing such a finding. The court concluded that the record did not establish that the decedent had reached maximum medical improvement during his lifetime, and therefore, his entitlement to permanency benefits did not vest before his death. View "Esposito v. Stamford" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an employee, alleged that her employer created a hostile work environment through the actions of her immediate superior, who made racially discriminatory comments. The plaintiff reported these incidents to the employer's human resources department, which conducted an investigation and issued a one-day suspension to the superior. Despite the employer's actions, the plaintiff felt unable to continue working under the superior and transferred to another division.The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities determined that the employer was not vicariously liable for the hostile work environment because the superior did not have the authority to take tangible employment actions against the plaintiff. The trial court upheld this decision, and the Appellate Court affirmed, applying the definition of "supervisor" from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Vance v. Ball State University, which limits the term to those who can take tangible employment actions.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Court's decision. The court held that the Vance definition of "supervisor" applies to claims under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. Since the superior did not have the authority to take tangible employment actions against the plaintiff, the employer could not be held vicariously liable for the creation of a hostile work environment. The court emphasized the importance of consistency with federal law in interpreting state employment discrimination statutes. View "O'Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued a former employee, the defendant, for breaching a noncompete agreement, violating the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), and breaching a common-law duty of confidentiality. The defendant, who had signed a noncompete agreement as a condition of continued employment, later established his own floor coating business and used the plaintiff’s proprietary information to develop competing products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also assisted competitors in developing their products.In a separate but related case, the trial court found the noncompete agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and ruled that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. The court also determined that a payment made to the defendant after his resignation was severance pay, not compensation for reaffirming the noncompete agreement. Based on these findings, the trial court in the present case granted summary judgment for the defendant, applying collateral estoppel to preclude further consideration of the issues.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had incorrectly determined the noncompete agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the breach of the noncompete agreement claim and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the agreement was supported by adequate consideration. The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the severance payment was not consideration for reaffirming the noncompete agreement and that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. These rulings were binding in the present case. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, with further proceedings required to determine the enforceability and potential breach of the noncompete agreement. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

An employee of the Department of Public Health (DPH), Juanita Estrada, filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging that the DPH retaliated against her for a whistleblower disclosure. Estrada's job duties included reviewing the qualifications of individuals appointed as municipal directors of health. She approved an appointment without verifying the individual's credentials, which were later found to be false. After notifying her supervisor, the individual was removed from the position. Estrada then repeated the error with another appointment and received a letter of reprimand. She subsequently received another reprimand, multiple unsatisfactory performance appraisals, and was demoted. Estrada filed grievances challenging these actions but did not raise a whistleblower retaliation claim. All grievances were denied. She then filed a whistleblower retaliation claim with the commission.The trial court concluded that the commission lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada’s whistleblower complaint, that Estrada had not made a protected whistleblower disclosure, and that she had failed to establish a causal connection between any alleged whistleblower disclosure and the alleged retaliation. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the merits in favor of the department. The commission appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.The Supreme Court held that the commission had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada’s whistleblower retaliation claim. The court also held that an employee is entitled to whistleblower protection under the statute for reporting his or her own error. However, the court concluded that Estrada had failed to prove that the department’s adverse personnel actions were caused by Estrada’s reporting of her errors rather than the errors themselves. The judgment of the Appellate Court was affirmed. View "Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada" on Justia Law

The case involves the State of Connecticut and the Connecticut State University Organization of Administrative Faculty, AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2836, AFL-CIO. The plaintiff, the state, sought to vacate an arbitration award reinstating a union member to his employment as the director of student conduct at a state university. The defendant union sought to confirm the award. The grievant’s employment had been terminated in connection with a domestic dispute involving his wife. The university conducted its own investigation and subsequently informed the grievant that his employment was being terminated as a result of his off-duty conduct. The union contested the grievant’s discharge, and an arbitration hearing was held. The arbitrator concluded that the university did not have just cause to terminate the grievant’s employment and ordered his reinstatement.The state contended that the award violated public policy. The trial court rendered judgment granting the state’s application to vacate the award and denying the union’s motion to confirm the award, from which the union appealed. The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the state failed to demonstrate that enforcement of the arbitration award reinstating the grievant to his position of director of student conduct violated public policy. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with direction to grant the union’s motion to confirm the award and to deny the state’s application to vacate the award. View "State v. Connecticut State University Organization of Administrative Faculty" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff, an employee of Frank Lill & Son, Inc., claimed to have sustained two separate injuries during his employment. He sent a written notice of claim to his employer and the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The employer, within twenty-eight days of receiving the plaintiff’s notice of claims, mailed a notice of intention to contest the plaintiff’s right to compensation benefits. However, the administrative law judge did not receive the notice of intention until after the twenty-eight day statutory period had elapsed. The plaintiff then filed a motion to preclude the defendants from contesting liability, arguing that the employer had failed to commence payment of the claims or to file a notice of intention to contest the claims within the required timeframe.The administrative law judge granted the plaintiff’s motion, concluding that the employer had failed to meet the requirements of the statute, and therefore, the defendants were presumed to have accepted the compensability of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries and were precluded from contesting his claims. The Compensation Review Board upheld the administrative law judge’s decision.The case was then brought before the Connecticut Supreme Court. The defendants argued that they had met their statutory obligation by mailing the notice within the statutory period, and that "mailing" should be considered the same as "filing" for the purposes of the statute. However, the court disagreed, stating that the statutory language was clear that the notice of intention to contest must be delivered, not just mailed, to the administrative law judge within the specified timeframe. The court also noted that the use of different terms in the same statute suggested that the legislature intended for the terms to have different meanings. The court affirmed the decision of the Compensation Review Board, ruling that the employer had not met its statutory obligation. View "Ajdini v. Frank Lill & Son, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a group of former firefighters who retired from the city of Meriden and claimed damages from the city and the Meriden Municipal Pension Board for alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiffs, who retired in 2015, claimed that they should have received an increase in their pension benefits based on a 2% wage increase that was awarded retroactively in an arbitration process after the plaintiffs had retired. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendants had breached the collective bargaining agreement by failing to recalculate the plaintiffs' pension benefits based on the retroactive wage increase.On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the defendants did not breach the collective bargaining agreement. This conclusion was based on the fact that the pension plan did not allow for the recalculation of pension benefits for retirees who voluntarily retired before the issuance of the arbitration award. The court noted that the pension plan only allowed for a retroactive adjustment of pension benefits for those who were forced to retire due to reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65. The court also held that the trial court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, rejecting the defendants' claim that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit. View "Stiegler v. Meriden" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court determining that the State Board of Labor Relations did not act unreasonably, illegally, arbitrarily, or in abuse of its discretion when it applied the clear and unmistakable waiver standard to a union's claim that the town's unilateral change to its pension plan constituted a refusal to bargain collectively in good faith, holding that there was no error.The Town of Middlebury appealed the labor board's determination that the Town violated the Municipal Employee Relations act (MERA), Mass. Gen. Stat. 7-467 et seq., by unilaterally changing the Town's practice of including extra pay duty in calculating pension benefits for members of the Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No. 34. The appellate court concluded that the labor board did not abuse its discretion or act unreasonably, illegally, or arbitrarily when it declined to apply the "contract coverage" standard adopted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2019. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it was proper for the appellate court to apply the clear and unmistakable waiver standard, rather than the contract coverage standard, in determining when whether the union had waived its statutory right to bargain collective regarding the manner in which the Town calculated its members' pension benefits. View "Middlebury v. Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No. 34" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Plaintiff's application to vacate an arbitration award rendered in favor of Defendant and granting Defendant's motion to confirm the award, holding that Plaintiff failed to satisfy any of the legal standards required for reversal of the trial court's judgment.Defendant filed an arbitration complaint asserting claims of breach of contact, breach of fiduciary duty, and common-law fraud. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of Defendant. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an application to vacate the award. The trial court denied the application to vacate and granted Defendant's motion to confirm the award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the arbitrator gave Plaintiff the full and fair hearing to which he was entitled under governing law, public policy, and the parties' arbitration agreement; and (2) the arbitrator properly applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to prevent Plaintiff from asserting counterclaims or defenses, contesting the allegations, and viewing the evidence against him. View "Ahmed v. Oak Management Corp." on Justia Law