No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Appellate court reversed the trial court's decision to strike the plaintiff's wrongful termination count alleging violation of public policy against assisting in false statements, finding the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts to survive a motion to strike. Case remanded for further proceedings on the wrongful termination claim.
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
Sieranski v. TJC Esq: Plain English Summary
What Happened
A paralegal employed by a law firm was asked by an attorney to prepare a court document (an affidavit) containing information she believed was false. When the paralegal refused or complained about this request, she was fired. She then sued for wrongful termination, claiming she was illegally dismissed for refusing to help create false statements.
What the Court Decided
The trial court initially dismissed her case, but an appellate court reversed that decision. The higher court found that the paralegal had presented enough facts to support her claim that she was wrongfully fired for refusing to participate in dishonest conduct. The case was sent back to the lower court to continue the legal proceedings.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling protects workers who refuse unethical or illegal requests from their employers. Employees cannot be fired simply for declining to help create false documents or misleading statements. This case clarifies that workers have legal rights when they resist pressure to act dishonestly—even when that pressure comes from management.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 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.