Retaliation Cases

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

The defendant P filed a complaint with the named defendant, the Commis- sion on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging that P's former employer, the plaintiff, the Hartford Police Department, had discrimi- nated against P on the basis of his ancestry. Upon graduating from the police academy, P, who is Vietnamese, began a probationary period of employment, which included a field training program and during which superior officers were required to complete daily observation reports evaluating his performance. P received a satisfactory rating upon com- pletion of the field training program and then continued to receive generally satisfactory daily evaluations from his superior officers, includ- ing K, who previously had been disciplined for making discriminatory and/or racist remarks to other individuals. Subsequently, on two separate occasions, K made certain remarks to P about his grammar and writing skills, criticizing P's accent, inquiring into P's ethnicity, nationality, edu- cational background, and whether the Hartford citizens with whom P interacted could understand him. When P indicated that he would file a grievance against K if he did not stop making such comments, K stated that P should ''watch what [he says] or [he] won't be around [for] long.'' K told other superior officers about his interactions with P and sent a memo to the commander of the police academy, calling P argumentative and confrontational. Thereafter, multiple officers began, for the first time, to label P as argumentative and confrontational in their daily observation reports. One officer wrote a memo noting that numerous daily observation reports were missing from P's file. In addition, days after K sent his memo to the commander, P was contacted about an incident that had occurred seven months earlier during field training, when P lost a piece of the hat to his uniform. When interviewed by the commander, P stated that, at the time he lost the hat piece, he had been ordered by his superi