Skip to main content

Sieranski v. TJC Esq, A Professional Services Corp.

Conn. App. Ct.March 2, 2021No. AC43272
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Bright; Moll; Suarez
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Appeal; trial court motion to strike granted, reversed on appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

Trial court's motion to strike the wrongful termination count was reversed. The appellate court held that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded facts supporting a public policy exception to at-will employment, as she was terminated for refusing to notarize a false affidavit in violation of Connecticut statutory public policy.

Excerpt

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant, T Co., for, inter alia, the alleged wrongful termination of her employment in violation of the statutory (§§ 3-94h and 53a-157b) public policy against making false statements with the intent to deceive or mislead. The plaintiff was employed by T Co. as a paralegal and reported to G, an attorney. G asked the plaintiff to prepare an affidavit stating something that the plaintiff alleged was not true regarding a litigation matter. The plaintiff drafted the affidavit but refused to notarize it because she knew it was false. G kept asking the plaintiff about the status of the affidavit and the plaintiff repeatedly stated that it was not filed because she would not sign it. T Co. terminated the plaintiff's employment approximately eight days after G first asked her to draft the affidavit. The defendant filed a motion to strike the count of the plaintiff's complaint alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy, arguing that she failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that T Co.'s conduct at issue contravened the public policy cited. The trial court granted T Co.'s motion to strike, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the trial court erred in granting T Co.'s motion to strike as to the count of the complaint alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy, as the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded facts that, if proven, would fall under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine; when read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the alleged facts were sufficient to support a finding that the plaintiff's employment was termi- nated because she refused to assist T Co. in misleading the court and others involved in the subject litigation by notarizing the allegedly false affidavit, and both §§ 3-94h and 53a-157b outline a public policy against knowingly assisting an affiant in submitting false statements to a court. Argued October 19, 2020—officia

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a paralegal who was fired after refusing to prepare what she believed was a false legal document for her employer, a law firm. The employee claimed her boss, an attorney, asked her to create an affidavit containing untrue statements for a court case. When she refused to participate in what she saw as making false statements to deceive the court, she was terminated from her job. The lower court initially dismissed her wrongful termination lawsuit, but the appeals court reversed that decision. The appeals court ruled that the paralegal had presented enough evidence to move forward with her case. The court found that firing someone for refusing to violate laws against making false statements could qualify as wrongful termination under Connecticut's public policy protections. This ruling matters for workers because it reinforces that employees may have legal protection when they refuse to participate in illegal activities at work. Even though most employees can be fired for almost any reason, this case shows that termination for refusing to break the law or violate important public policies may still be challenged in court. Workers who face similar situations should know they may have options if they're fired for standing up to illegal requests from their employers.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.