No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Plaintiff prevailed at trial on wrongful termination claim under Connecticut statute § 31-51q after being fired for raising safety complaints. Court awarded damages and attorney's fees, though appellate court reversed the attorney's fees calculation and remanded for recalculation using the lodestar method.
The plaintiff sought damages from the defendant for the alleged wrongful termination of his employment in violation of statute (§ 31-51q). The plaintiff, who was employed as a truck driver by the defendant, alleged that his employment was terminated after raising safety complaints to the defendant. After a jury trial, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with the jury's verdict. The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for attorney's fees, seeking an amount calculated pursuant to the lodestar method, in which the number of hours expended by counsel on the litigation and counsel's hourly rate are used to determine reasonable attorney's fees. The court, however, awarded attorney's fees on a one-third contingency basis. The court concluded that the plaintiff's fee agreement with his counsel was ambiguous because the agreement stated both that the law firm's employment was on a contingency fee basis and that time would be kept on an hourly basis, and, in the event a recovery is made and attorney's fees are awarded, the law firm shall receive whichever amount was greater. The plaintiff appealed and the defendant filed a cross appeal, claiming that the court erred by awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiff, by failing to set aside the jury's award of damages, by rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and by providing an incorrect charge to the jury. Held: 1. The trial court erred by failing to apply the lodestar method in calculating the amount of attorney's fees awarded to the plaintiff: in resolving the alleged ambiguity in the fee agreement, the court, with no further explanation, awarded attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the damages that the plaintiff received; the fee agreement contemplated both the one-third contingency and lodestar methods of calculating attorney's fees but clearly stated that the law firm shall receive as its fee whichever was the greater of the two, and, because the court failed to apply the provision of
Roach v. Transwaste, Inc. – Plain English Summary
What Happened
A truck driver employed by Transwaste, Inc. was fired after reporting safety concerns to his employer. The driver sued, claiming the company wrongfully terminated him in retaliation for raising these safety complaints.
What the Court Decided
A jury found in favor of the driver, determining that he was indeed fired illegally under Connecticut law (§ 31-51q). The court awarded him damages and attorney's fees to cover his legal costs. However, an appeals court later overturned the attorney's fees award, requiring the lower court to recalculate the amount using a different method before determining the final fee amount.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case reinforces that employees have legal protection when reporting workplace safety hazards. Companies cannot fire workers simply for speaking up about dangerous conditions. Even if an employer disagrees with a safety complaint, firing the employee for making it can result in the company paying damages and legal fees. This ruling helps protect workers who might otherwise stay silent about safety problems due to fear of losing their jobs.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Roach from the same court.
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for the allegedly wrongful termination of his employment, in violation of public policy and the statute ((Rev. to 2015) § 31-51q) prohibiting an employer from retaliating against an employee for exercising constitutionally protected speech.…
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.