Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, L.L.C.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Prescott; Moll; Alexander
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that undisputed facts did not establish a violation of Connecticut statute § 31-73(b) prohibiting employers from demanding money from employees as a condition of continued employment.
Excerpt
The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the allegedly wrongful termina- tion of his employment by N Co., which operated a helicopter flight training school, claiming that J, the owner of N Co., in violation of statute (§ 31-73 (b)), had demanded 50 percent of future proceeds from a separate flight examination business the plaintiff sought to undertake as a condition of his continued at-will employment as N Co.'s chief flight instructor. The Federal Aviation Administration had approached the plaintiff about an open independent flight examiner position and the possibility of the plaintiff starting his own business as a certified FAA flight examiner. The plaintiff and J viewed the opportunity as a positive development for the plaintiff and for N Co. The plaintiff thereafter approached J about a loan to cover the costs related to a training program the plaintiff had to attend to obtain FAA flight examiner certification. J expressed willingness to loan the plaintiff the money if the plaintiff would remit to N Co. any examination fees he would later receive, until the loan was paid off, and agree to share equally with N Co. all examination fees he would thereafter collect. The plaintiff did not respond to J's proposals and did not take a loan from J. The plaintiff later explained in a text message to R, J's wife and an employee of N Co., that he had paid the costs of the training program because he wanted to keep his employment with N Co. and his new flight examina- tion business separate. R responded to the plaintiff, stating that J had said that he should clean out his desk and that he no longer worked for N Co. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted N Co.'s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the undisputed facts did not raise a genuine issue of material fact that N Co. violated the public policy underlying § 31-73 (b), which prohibits employers from demanding money from employees as a condition of continued employme
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
The plaintiff filed an affidavit of illegal discriminatory practice with the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging that the defendant A Co. wrongfully terminated her employment. Follow- ing an assignment of the matter to the commission's Office of Public Hearings, a human rights referee granted A Co.'s motion for summary judgment, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact. The plaintiff and the commission separately appealed the referee's decision granting the motion for summary judgment to the Superior Court. The plaintiff claimed that genuine issues of material fact existed. The trial court consolidated the appeals, sustained the consolidated appeal and remanded the matter for a trial before the Office of Public Hearings, concluding that the referee improperly rendered summary judgment because A Co. did not meet its burden of establishing that there were no genuine issues of material fact. On A Co.'s appeal to this court, held that the trial court properly sustained the consolidated appeal and remanded the matter for a hearing: the court properly considered the plaintiff's affidavit as competent evidence in opposition to A Co.'s motion for summary judgment as the plaintiff's affidavit of discriminatory prac- tice was sworn and was properly considered pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 17-49); moreover, the court properly conducted a plenary review of the record in considering whether genuine issues of material fact existed, as the deferential standard used to review administrative fact-finding did not extend to the determination of whether genuine issues of material fact existed in the summary judgment context; furthermore, the court did not err in considering whether genu- ine issues of material fact existed, as the record contained contradictory information, including a sworn statement by an employee of A Co. that the plaintiff's job duties required her to be physically present at the workplace and the plaint
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's motion to amend her complaint, to include facts regarding her PTSD diagnosis and claims of racial and disability discrimination, eight months after she filed her administrative appeal from the termination of her teaching contract. The trial court did not consider Appellant's prior discipline at another school when determining that she was subject to termination, and Appellant was not denied due process. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant's failure to enter third quarter final grades was good and just cause for termination. Judgment affirmed.
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the defen- dants' motions to dismiss her retaliatory discharge action, which alleged a violation of the whistleblower statute (§ 31-51m). The plaintiff, while employed at a pizza restaurant owned by the defendant S Co. and managed by the defendant L, submitted a complaint to the local health district reporting unsanitary conditions at the restaurant. The day after a health inspector visited the restaurant and disclosed that the plaintiff had made the complaint, the defendants terminated her employment. The plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that she had failed to exhaust administrative remedies available through the Department of Labor, as required by § 31-51m (c). Held: The trial court improperly granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's retaliatory discharge action on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's action focused on her employer's con- duct in terminating her employment following her complaint to the health district, the substance of which related to public health, not occupational safety or health. Argued September 9—officially released December 16, 2025
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.