Plaintiff wins First Amendment verdict in excess of $8,000,000!!

In what may be one of the largest employment law verdicts in the State of Connecticut, a physician, Dr. Berry Schumann won a huge verdict against Dianon Systems, Inc. for terminating him in violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 31-51q and in violation of public policy.  The plaintiff was represented by Attorney Stephen J. Fitzgerald of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Chimes & Richardson, P.C.  The defendant was represented by Attorney Daniel Schwartz of Pullman & Comley.  Dr. Schumann claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for his internal complaints about a new test which was unverified, overly expensive and unnecessary.  The Honorable Deborah Frankel presided.  The verdict was for $4.2 million but is expected to exceed $8,000,000 when attorneys fees, punitive damages and interest on an offer of judgment are added.  Congratulations to Attorney Fitzgerald and Dr. Schumann!  Good luck with the post trial motions and what will likely be an appeal.

High Court denies employer’s motion for reconsideration in Curry.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has denied the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration in Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc.  I wrote about this important case in an earlier post.  The employer had filed a motion for reconsideration asking, among other things, that the high court revisit the issue of whether or not the Plaintiff’s attorney’s post termination letter could be considered a request for an accommodation.  While the Court did not articulate its reason for denying this motion, the undersigned believes that the issue was a red herring.  Mr. Curry had clearly asked for an accommodation himself prior to his termination by posting for the lighter duty warehouse position.  The Court had clearly indicated that this request constituted a request for an accommodation.  The opinion stands as written.

Spouse of employee has no standing under CFEPA.

Our Supreme Court recently held that spouses of employees do not have standing to sue under CFEPA, our state’s anti-discrimination law.  In McWeeney v. City of Hartford, the court rejected the claim of a spouse that he had been denied pension benefits because of his marital status.  The Court interepretted CFEPA narrowly to include only employees and prospective employees.  The more interesting question will be whether or not former employees are protected by the law.  One could imagine retaliation against a former employee in post employment compensation, such as accrued vacation pay, benefits, or incentive compensation.  Hopefully, our superior courts won’t interpret McWeeney to foreclose claims by former employees.

Connecticut Supreme Court may consider “fluctuating work week” case

The Connecticut Supreme Court has before it an important case which will affect the way back-pay awards are fashioned in overtime cases brought under the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (C.G.S. Section 31-58, et seq.).  In Stokes v. Norwich Taxi, the plaintiff made a claim for unpaid overtime wages.  He had been put on a salary and not paid any extra compensation for work in excess of forty hours in a week.  He claimed that he should have been classified as non-exempt and paid time and a half for his overtime work.  His employer claimed, among other things, that the calculation of his overtime premiums should not be time and a half, but instead that it should be based on the fluctuating work week  method of overtime calculation found in the Code of Federal Regulations.  This method calculates the regular rate of pay by dividing the weekly salary by the total number of hours worked rather than by forty.  Employees paid under the fluctuating work week can be paid less than one third of what they deserve.  There is no similar regulation in our Connecticut system.  To see a recent case discussing the pros and cons of this argument, see Hunter v. Sprint Corp., 453 F.Supp.2d 44, (D.D.C. 2006).  Attorney Marc Mercier of Beck & Eldergill is handling the case for the plaintiff.  He says that the court could avoid this issue, but that the issue could be considered.  Lets wish him luck in this important case. 

Caucasion has prima facie case of gender, race and age discrimination.

In a rare case, a white male over forty defeated his employer’s motion for summary judgment in his suit claiming discrimination.  The plaintiff in Framularo v. Board of Education of the City of Bridgeport established that he was not hired as an assistant principal under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.  Judge Warren Eginton of the District of Connecticut refused to grant summary judgment in part because only one in sixteen white applicants were hired, where four in nine African-Americans were hired.  The full text is available at www.ctlawtribune.com. 

Minimum Wage increase passes Senate

The Senate passed a bill which would increase the Connecticut minimum wage from $7.65 to $8.00 on January 1, 2009 and to $8.25 on January 1, 2010.  Over 60,000 people work in minimum wage jobs.  The current Federal minimum wage is only $5.85 per hour.  Connecticut News Junkie writes about this topic. The Governor is reported to be considering not signing this important bill because it might harm small businesses.  This writer disagrees and hope Governor Rell signs the bill.  I own a small business.  Small business don’t succeed or fail by keeping their employees in poverty.  We succeed because we have happy, motivated, healthy employees and a plan for success.  Keeping our employees below the poverty line is not a part of any successful business plan that I know of. 

Telling harasser to “stop” constitutes protected opposition under Title VII and CFEPA.

A new Connecticut Superior Court opinion holds correctly that a woman’s communications to her harasser demanding that he stop constitutes protected opposition to discrimination under Title VII and CFEPA.  In Hoydic v. Genesco, Inc., 2008 WL 1914338, Judge Bruce Levin refused to dismiss a woman’s retaliation claims under Title VII and CFEPA and rejected the defendant’s argument that she had not engaged in protected opposition when she told her harasser to stop.

“[T]his court holds that the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that she engaged in protected activity by pleading that she demanded Lunn cease his sexual advances and attacks on her.”

The case has a number of other interesting points to it, but this was the most intriguing for me.  Plaintiff’s lawyers should not hesitate going forward to include retaliation claims based on the victim’s communications directly to her harasser, despite the fact that there may not have been a communication to HR or management.

Connecticut Senate approves expansion of State whistle blower law.

The Senate yesterday approve a bill which would expand protection of employees who blow the whistle on corruption.  The Hartford Courant has reported on this bill.  The bill would expand protection to employees of large state contractors who blow the whistle to their employers.  The existing law only protects those who blow the whistle to the state agency involved.  It also adds a provision creating a rebuttable presumption that an change in employment status within three years of the whistle blow is retaliatory.  Of course, this is the most controversial part of the bill and management attorneys aren’t happy about it.

Proposed Bill Gives Connecticut workers more sick leave rights.

The proposed new sick leave act will provide more Connecticut employees with greater protection from losing their job because of illness.  There is a bill pending in the Connecticut General Assembly, Senate bill 217, which if passed would provide greater sick leave rights to more Connecticut employees.  Contrary to some opinion, this bill is much needed and is not a repeat of the protections that already are provided by our Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Act.  That law only protects employees who work for employers with 75 or more employees.  This new law would apply to employers with 25 or more employees.  Furthermore, it would require “paid” sick leave.  The FMLA does not require employees to be paid.  Finally, it would apply to any illness, not just the “serious health conditions” covered by the FMLA.  Employees and their lawyers should urge the passage of this bill.