Wrongful Termination Cases

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