constructive discharge claim in Connecticut

2020The plaintiff, Ohan Karagozian, an opti- cian formerly employed by the defendant, USV Optical, Inc.,1 brought this action for constructive discharge, alleging that (1) the defendant required him to provide optometric assistance services to a doctor of optometry in violation of the public policy of the state of Connecti- cut, (2) the defendant refused and failed to excuse the plaintiff from those duties, and (3) ‘‘[a]s a result, the plaintiff was compelled to resign his position with the defendant . . . .’’ The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff’s corrected revised complaint on the ground

2020The plaintiff, Ohan Karagozian, an opti- cian formerly employed by the defendant, USV Optical, Inc.,1 brought this action for constructive discharge, alleging that (1) the defendant required him to provide optometric assistance services to a doctor of optometry in violation of the public policy of the state of Connecti- cut, (2) the defendant refused and failed to excuse the plaintiff from those duties, and (3) ‘‘[a]s a result, the plaintiff was compelled to resign his position with the defendant . . . .’’ The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff’s corrected revised complaint on the ground

2020The plaintiff then peti- tioned this court for certification to appeal, which we granted on one issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly construe and apply Brittell v. Dept. of Correction, [supra, 247 Conn. 148 ], in holding that an action for constructive discharge in violation of public policy requires that the plaintiff allege and prove not only that the employer intended to create an intolerable work atmosphere but that the employer intended thereby to force the plain- tiff to resign?’’ Karagozian v. USV Optical, Inc., 331 Conn. 904 , 201 A.3d 1023 (2019).

2020The plaintiff then peti- tioned this court for certification to appeal, which we granted on one issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly construe and apply Brittell v. Dept. of Correction, [supra, 247 Conn. 148 ], in holding that an action for constructive discharge in violation of public policy requires that the plaintiff allege and prove not only that the employer intended to create an intolerable work atmosphere but that the employer intended thereby to force the plain- tiff to resign?’’ Karagozian v. USV Optical, Inc., 331 Conn. 904 , 201 A.3d 1023 (2019).

2019He looks to federal cases to support his argument that, in cases applying the doctrine of constructive discharge, courts did not focus on the employer's state of mind, but on the objective reality of the working conditions and the impact of that objective reality, and not on the particular employee in question, but on the hypothetical reasonable person in the employee's position. 9 In his appellate brief, the plaintiff provides the following quote: " 'To find that an employee's resignation *508 amounted to a constructive discharge, the trier of fact must be satisfied that the ... working condi

2019He looks to federal cases to support his argument that, in cases applying the doctrine of constructive discharge, courts did not focus on the employer's state of mind, but on the objective reality of the working conditions and the impact of that objective reality, and not on the particular employee in question, but on the hypothetical reasonable person in the employee's position. 9 In his appellate brief, the plaintiff provides the following quote: " 'To find that an employee's resignation *508 amounted to a constructive discharge, the trier of fact must be satisfied that the ... working condi

2019Similarly, in Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. , 663 F.3d 556 , 560 (2d Cir. 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to grant a motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant on a constructive discharge claim.

2019Co. , 92 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1996), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut to render summary judgment in favor of the defendant on a constructive discharge claim.

2019Employment at will grants both parties the right to terminate the relationship for any reason, or no reason, at any time without fear of legal liability." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC , 260 Conn. 691 , 697-98, 802 A.2d 731 (2002). 8 In Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic , 385 F.3d 210 , 231 (2d Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the "law is clear that a constructive discharge claim cannot be proved by demonstrating that an employee is dissatisfied with the work assignments she receives within her job ti

2019Employment at will grants both parties the right to terminate the relationship for any reason, or no reason, at any time without fear of legal liability." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC , 260 Conn. 691 , 697-98, 802 A.2d 731 (2002). 8 In Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic , 385 F.3d 210 , 231 (2d Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the "law is clear that a constructive discharge claim cannot be proved by demonstrating that an employee is dissatisfied with the work assignments she receives within her job ti

2019Employment at will grants both parties the right to terminate the relationship for any reason, or no reason, at any time without fear of legal liability." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC , 260 Conn. 691 , 697-98, 802 A.2d 731 (2002). 8 In Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic , 385 F.3d 210 , 231 (2d Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the "law is clear that a constructive discharge claim cannot be proved by demonstrating that an employee is dissatisfied with the work assignments she receives within her job ti

2019He looks to federal cases to support his argument that, in cases applying the doctrine of constructive discharge, courts did not focus on the employer's state of mind, but on the objective reality of the working conditions and the impact of that objective reality, and not on the particular employee in question, but on the hypothetical reasonable person in the employee's position. 9 In his appellate brief, the plaintiff provides the following quote: " 'To find that an employee's resignation *508 amounted to a constructive discharge, the trier of fact must be satisfied that the ... working condi

2019Employment at will grants both parties the right to terminate the relationship for any reason, or no reason, at any time without fear of legal liability." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC , 260 Conn. 691 , 697-98, 802 A.2d 731 (2002). 8 In Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic , 385 F.3d 210 , 231 (2d Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the "law is clear that a constructive discharge claim cannot be proved by demonstrating that an employee is dissatisfied with the work assignments she receives within her job ti

2002To be actionable, an employee at-will's constructive discharge claim must be premised on impropriety "derived from some important violation of public policy." Morris v. Hartford Courant Co ., 200 Conn. 676 , 679 , 513 A.2d 66 (1986). 3 See also Dorlette v. Harborside Healthcare Corp ., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. 266417 (August 9, 1999, Beach, J .) (violation of clear public policy must be alleged; "the mere allegation that a discharge is constructive does not by itself convert a nonactionable discharge of an at-will employee into a viable cause of action.") Here,

2002To be actionable, an employee at-will's constructive discharge claim must be premised on impropriety "derived from some important violation of public policy." Morris v. Hartford Courant Co ., 200 Conn. 676 , 679 , 513 A.2d 66 (1986). 3 See also Dorlette v. Harborside Healthcare Corp ., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. 266417 (August 9, 1999, Beach, J .) (violation of clear public policy must be alleged; "the mere allegation that a discharge is constructive does not by itself convert a nonactionable discharge of an at-will employee into a viable cause of action.") Here,

1999Seery v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 17 Conn. App. 532, 540 , 554 A.2d 757 (1989).” We disagree with the trial court’s analysis of this claim as a constructive discharge claim and the trial court’s reliance on Seery for the proposition that when there is a resignation there cannot be a discharge. “ ‘Normally, an employee who resigns is not regarded as having been discharged, and thus would have no right of action for abusive discharge.’ . . .

1999Seery v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 17 Conn. App. 532, 540 , 554 A.2d 757 (1989).” We disagree with the trial court’s analysis of this claim as a constructive discharge claim and the trial court’s reliance on Seery for the proposition that when there is a resignation there cannot be a discharge. “ ‘Normally, an employee who resigns is not regarded as having been discharged, and thus would have no right of action for abusive discharge.’ . . .