Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, who worked for United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) for thirty-two years, was diagnosed with diabetes in 1987 and with diabetic neuropathy in 1998. The diabetic neuropathy caused impairment to his arms and hands. In 2003, Plaintiff suffered injuries to his upper arms and hands in a work-related accident. After Plaintiff retired in 2008 he filed a claim for benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Commissioner apportioned the payment so that Defendants, UPS and its insurer, paid only for the proportion of disability attributed to Plaintiff’s occupational injuries rather than pay the entirety of Plaintiff’s permanent partial disability to his upper extremities and hands. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The Appellate Court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a disability arising from a progressive nonoccupational condition - such as Plaintiff’s diabetes and diabetic neuropathy - that manifests prior to an occupational injury and that further disables the same body part is a compensable preexisting injury rather than a noncompensable concurrently developing disease under the apportionment rule established in Deschenes v. Transco, Inc. View "Sullins v. United Parcel Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

A union initiated arbitration proceedings after a police officer with the town of Stratford was terminated for lying in connection with his employment. A three-member arbitration panel determined that the officer’s termination was excessive and ordered that the town reinstate the officer. The town filed an application to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the award encouraged police officer dishonesty and thereby violated public policy against lying by law enforcement personnel. The trial court denied the application. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that the arbitration award violated a clear public policy against intentional dishonesty by police officers in connection with their employment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there is a public policy against intentional police officer dishonesty in connection with his or her employment, but (2) in this case, the arbitration award reinstating the officer’s employment did not violate that public policy. Remanded. View "Stratford v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 407" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, Plaintiff's employer and manager, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her physical disability and/or her perceived disability, among other claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants on the disability discrimination claim to the extent that it alleged a cause of action based on a perceived physical disability, concluding that a cause of action based on a perceived disability is not a legally recognized action in Connecticut. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act not only protects individuals who have a physical disability, but also individuals who are regarded by their employers as having a physical disability. View "Desrosiers v. Diageo N. Am., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought compensation for injuries he sustained while employed with his employer. The employer’s insurer at the time Plaintiff filed his claim entered into a voluntary agreement on the claim and subsequently sought apportionment against Employer’s prior insurers, including Republic-Franklin Insurance Company. Republic-Franklin did not agree to its apportionment liability until just before the close of evidence. Thereafter, the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner ordered Republic-Franklin to pay interest pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-299b. The Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board, holding that the Commissioner’s order of interest was proper because (1) the Commissioner satisfied the statutory prerequisites of section 31-299b; and (2) Republic-Franklin failed to preserve its claim that the Commissioner’s order of interest was not made within a reasonable period of time as required by section 31-299b. View "Ferraro v. Ridgefield European Motors, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her employer (Defendant) signed a document regarding the terms of Plaintiff’s employment. The parties agreed the document would cover "a thirty-six month period." After Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment before the term expired, Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that she and Defendant had entered into a letter agreement for a fixed term of employment of thirty-six months and that Defendant violated the agreement. The trial court concluded that, on its face, the letter agreement constituted a contract for a definite term and that Defendant breached the agreement when it terminated Plaintiff’s employment without good cause before the term expired. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the letter agreement was ambiguous. Specifically, the language of the letter agreement could reasonably be interpreted as evincing either an intent to create a definite term of employment or an intent to set the terms and conditions of an at-will employment contract, and therefore, the trial court should have considered extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties. Remanded for a new trial. View "Cruz v. Visual Perceptions, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two unions, filed a petition for a declaratory ruling with the Department of Public Utility Control seeking a ruling establishing that the Department had violated the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act by failing to promulgate regulations prescribing the rights of persons designated as participants in uncontested proceedings before the Department. The Department denied Plaintiffs’ petition. The trial court set aside the Department’s decision, concluding that the Department was required to promulgate the regulations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ appeal because Plaintiffs did not plead sufficient facts that, if true, demonstated that they were aggrieved by the Department’s ruling on their petition. Remanded with direction to dismiss Plaintiffs’ appeal. View "Conn. Indep. Util. Workers, Local 12924 v. Dep’t of Pub. Util. Control" on Justia Law

While working for Employer, Employee filed notice of a workers' compensation claim related to a lower back injury he received during the course of his employment. Employee was discharged approximately four years later pursuant to a termination agreement that provided that he agreed to release Employer from any and all workers' compensation claims. Employer later brought an action against Employee, alleging civil theft, fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion based on Defendant's admission that he never intended to release his workers' compensation claim. Employee counterclaimed, claiming that Employer's cause of action was in retaliation for Employee's decision to exercise his rights under the Workers' Compensation Act. Employer filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim, asserting that the doctrine of absolute immunity shielded Employer from the counterclaim. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision denying Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, holding that an employer's right to seek redress for its alleged grievances in court does not outweigh an employee's interest in exercising his rights under the Act without fear of retaliation by his employer, and therefore, absolute immunity did not shield Employer from Employee's counterclaim.View "MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who worked for Defendant as a plumber, brought this action seeking payment of overtime wages for, among other things, his daily commute between his home and the job sites. The trial court concluded that Defendant was not entitled to overtime compensation for his travel time between home and work because the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) preempted the relevant Connecticut laws and regulations governing overtime and travel time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because section 31-60-10 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, as applied to the facts of this case, confers lesser benefits on employees than those afforded under the FLSA, federal preemption applies, and therefore, Plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for his commuting time. View "Sarrazin v. Coastal, Inc." on Justia Law

Claimant suffered a lower back injury during the course of his employment and filed notice of a workers' compensation claim. Employer later informed Claimant he would be discharged from his employment. Claimant signed a termination agreement in order not to forfeit his severance pay. The agreement stipulated that Claimant released his previously accepted workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Commissioner refused to approve the termination agreement, finding there was no consideration offered by Employer to Claimant in exchange for Plaintiff's release of the workers' compensation clim. The Workers' Compensation Review Board affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board properly affirmed the Commissioner's decision not to approve the agreement as a "voluntary agreement" or stipulation in light of its finding that Claimant's release of his workers' compensation claim was not supported by consideration. View "Leonetti v. MacDermid, Inc." on Justia Law

The Town of Malborough terminated the employment of Emily Chaponis as town assessor after the board of selectmen did not make a motion to reappoint her to a successive term of office. Chaponis filed a grievance through the Union, of which she was a member, alleging that the Town violated its collective bargaining agreement with the Union by discharging her without just cause. An arbitration panel ordered the Town to reinstate Chaponis to her position, concluding that the Town violated the agreement when it terminated Chaponis' employment without just cause. The trial court denied the Town's application to vacate the arbitration award. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the arbitrators' award ordering the reinstatement of Chaponis' employment after the statutory expiration of her term of office contravened the mandates of the statutory scheme governing the term of office for municipal officers, and therefore, the award was unenforceable. Remanded. View "Town of Marlborough v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 818-052" on Justia Law