Firm News

ROSE KALLOR OBTAINED DEFENSE VERDICTS IN ALL CASES TRIED TO VERDICT!

Vollemans v. Town of Wallingford

            Plaintiff was a former employee of Watertown, who was terminated when his job as the Superintendent of the Pierce Power Station was eliminated because the Station was decommissioned.  Plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract implied contract, promissory estoppel and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; however, plaintiff withdrew his breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims before trial.  Plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim was tried to the Court (Taylor, J) on April 10 and 11, 2007.

            On June 26, 2007, the Court (Taylor, J) rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants.  The opinion can be found at 2007 WL 2038924.  A subsequent motion to reargue was denied (2008 WL 2204696).  Judge Taylor held that the Fennell Doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claim for promissory estoppel against a governmental agency.  He also held that the proprietary capacity exception to governmental immunity does not apply to a claim for promissory estoppel.

 

Flaherty v. Borough of Naugatuck

            Plaintiff was the former Fire Chief for Naugatuck who retired on March 9, 2002.  He claimed that upon retirement, his accrued unused sick time was not calculated correctly despite the defendant’s promise that he would be paid at 12 hours per day, according to the collective bargaining agreement, as opposed to 7 hours per day and that, therefore, his pension benefits were not calculated correctly.  Plaintiff, however, was not part of the collective bargaining unit.  Plaintiff’s theories of recovery included breach of contract, detrimental reliance and unjust enrichment. 

            Plaintiff’s claims were tried to the Court (Gormley, JTR) in early September 2007.  On October 9, 2007, the Court (Gormley, JTR) rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants.  The opinion can be found at 2007 WL 3121679.  Judge Gormley held that the Fennell Doctrine barred all three of the plaintiff’s claims.  Alternatively, Judge Gormley held that even if Fennell did not bar the claim, plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was any contract or unambiguous offer made to him that would entitle him to a verdict in his favor.

 

Sophia v. City of Danbury
           
            Plaintiff was the former Executive Secretary for the Chief of Police of the Danbury Police Department.  As part of an Early Retirement Incentive Program, plaintiff applied for early retirement on February 20, 2003.  Her retirement became irrevocable after March 7, 2003, although she attempted to rescind it, by letter from her attorney, on May 9, 2003.  She was not permitted to rescind her retirement and she did retire on June 30, 2003.  Plaintiff brought suit against the City of Danbury, claiming that she was discriminated against because of her gender, age and physical disability and then retaliated against in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §46a-60(a)(1) and (a)(4).  Summary judgment was granted to the defendant on all claims except for the retaliation claim.

            The retaliation claim proceeded to trial in November 2007.  Plaintiff claimed that she was forced to retire, thus amounting to a constructive discharge.  The case was tried to a jury, with Judge Cremins presiding, from November 13 through 16, 2007.  After 12 days of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.  The jury found that the plaintiff was constructively discharged, but found that there was no causal nexus between the constructive discharge and her complaints of harassment.  This verdict was upheld on appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court.  In upholding the verdict, the Appellate Court conclusively held that there is no common law cause of action for constructive discharge in Connecticut.  This opinion can be found at 116 Conn. App. 68.

 

O’Halloran v. Town of Fairfield, Gabriel v. Town of Fairfield and Carlson v. Town of Fairfield

            These cases were pending in the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.

            The complainants were female employees with the Town of Fairfield who applied for a promotion to the position of Zoning Inspector in the Planning and Zoning Department.  A male was promoted over these three women based on the Director’s assessment that the complainants were not qualified for the position.  They each individually filed complaints with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities alleging that they were not promoted because of their gender in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.

A public hearing on O’Halloran’s complaint took place between April and August 2008.  On May 25, 2009 the Hearing Officer issued its ruling in favor of the Town of Fairfield, finding that the complainant had not sustained her burden in proving that she was not promoted because of her gender.

Gabriel’s and Carlson’s complaints were heard together at a public hearing in November 2009.  On December 28, 2009 the Hearing Officer issued its ruling in favor of the Town of Fairfield, also finding that the complainants had not sustained their burdens in proving that they were not promoted because of their gender.

            The Connecticut Superior Court dismissed the appeal of the Hearing Officer’s finding.

 

Krahm v. Town of Fairfield

            Plaintiff is a former sergeant in the Fairfield Police Department.  In the summer of 2003, she filed a hostile work environment complaint against her male subordinate.  An internal affairs investigation was completed, absolving the subordinate of any wrongdoing.  Plaintiff claimed that thereafter she was subject to retaliation from that subordinate and the Fairfield Police Department in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §46a-60(a)(1).

            Plaintiff’s claim was tried to the Court (Doherty, J.) from December 9 through 30, 2008.  On October 1, 2009, the Court rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants.  The opinion can be found at 2009 WL 3739340.  The Court held that the discipline that plaintiff received, such as a letter of reprimand, does not amount to an adverse employment action under Burlington No. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).  The Court further held that the defendant had offered evidence of a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for all actions taken against the plaintiff and the plaintiff failed to prove that those reasons were pretextual.

 

Garrity v. Town of Fairfield

            Plaintiff was the former Golf Professional who managed the Town of Fairfield’s public golf courses over a period of approximately 10 years.  His employment was governed by contract.  After receiving numerous complaints from golf patrons regarding the way in which Mr. Garrity was managing the golf courses, the Town of Fairfield made the decision to put the contract out to bid.  Mr. Garrity applied for and interviewed for the contract but was not selected.  He brought suit claiming that he was discriminated against because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  The Town of Fairfield not only denied that it discriminated against the plaintiff because of his age, but argued that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was inapplicable because Mr. Garrity was an independent contractor, not an employee of the Town of Fairfield.

            Plaintiff’s claims were tried to a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut before Judge Alvin Thompson from March 27 through April 6, 2009.  After brief deliberations, on April 6, 2009, the jury found that the plaintiff was an independent contractor and returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

 

Henton v. City of New London

            Plaintiff is an African American Refuse Collector in the Solid Waste Division of the Department of Public Works for the City of New London.  He claimed that he was discriminated against and harassed because of his race and then retaliated against for complaining about such discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII.  After the City of New London obtained summary judgment on the plaintiff’s race discrimination and harassment claims (Henton v. City of New London, 2008 WL 2185933 (Burns, USDJ)), plaintiff’s retaliation proceeded to trial.

            The retaliation claim was tried to a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut Before Judge Ellen Bree Burns on August 13 and 14, 2009.  After brief deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the City of New London.  Specifically, the jury found that the plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action and that the decision maker did not know that he had made any complaint of race discrimination or harassment.