No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Plaintiff, a commercial truck driver, won a wrongful termination action based on retaliation for raising vehicle safety complaints. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict awarding $24,288 in lost wages, rejecting the employer's challenge that damages were speculative.
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. The plaintiff, who had been employed by the defendant as a commercial truck driver, alleged that the defendant terminated his employment after he raised complaints concerning the safety of its vehicles. At trial, the plaintiff testified that, following the termination of his employment, he was out of work for approximately 6 months, the defendant had paid him at a rate of 46 cents per mile, he had driven a little more than 2000 miles per week, and he had driven approximately 230,000 miles during his 2 years with the defendant. The plaintiff's testimony was the sole evidence presented with respect to his lost wages, and the defendant offered no evidence to impeach his testimony. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded him $24,288 in damages for lost wages. The jury interrogatories indicated that the jury had found that the plaintiff was owed wages corresponding to 2200 miles per week at a rate of 46 cents per mile for a period of 24 weeks. The defendant filed a motion for remittitur, seeking to reduce the dam- ages award to zero. The defendant asserted that there was no evidence to support the damages award because the plaintiff had failed to provide tangible evidence or to testify with sufficient specificity as to his lost wages. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for remittitur, concluding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to support the damages award and that, in light of the specific figures in the jury interrogatories, the award was a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff's lost wages. The trial court thereafter rendered judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with the jury's verdict. The plaintiff appealed and the defen
Roach v. Transwaste, Inc. — Plain English Summary
What Happened
A commercial truck driver named Roach worked for Transwaste, Inc. When he noticed safety problems with the company's vehicles, he reported these concerns to management. Shortly after raising these complaints, Transwaste fired him. Roach sued, claiming the company illegally fired him in retaliation for speaking up about the unsafe conditions—a violation of Connecticut law that protects workers' right to report safety issues.
What the Court Decided
The court sided with Roach. A jury found that Transwaste wrongfully terminated him for reporting safety problems. The court awarded Roach $24,288 in lost wages. When Transwaste argued the damages were unclear or speculative, the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected this argument and upheld the full verdict.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case reinforces that employees cannot be punished for reporting legitimate workplace safety concerns. Connecticut law protects workers who speak up about dangerous conditions. If you're fired shortly after reporting safety issues, you may have legal grounds to recover lost wages and other damages. Employers must take safety complaints seriously rather than silencing workers through termination.
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 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.…
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.