Wrongful Termination Cases

Whether a unilateral amendment made pursuant to a change-of-terms provision violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and renders a contract illusory.

Civ.R. 12(B)(6) failure to state a claim wrongful termination clear public policy pregnancy discrimination temporal nexus

Civ.R. 56 summary judgment App.R. 16 App.R. 12 at will employment wrongful discharge in violation of public policy clarity element. Appellant fails to separately argue her assignments of error, but in the interest of judicial fairness, we address the assigned errors. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees when appellant was unable to show that there were genuine issues of material fact. Although there is a clear public policy favoring workplace safety, appellant was unable to identify a public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine that is applicable to her claims.

The plaintiffs, B, E, and M Co., sought to recover damages from the defendant car dealership for alleged breach of contract, fraud, theft, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) in connection with the purchase and sale of a plow truck. B, the managing member of M Co., testified that, on January 21, 2015, he signed an instalment contract on behalf of M Co. for the purchase of the plow truck. E, who was not a member of M Co., cosigned the contract, and B drove the truck off the lot. The plaintiffs did not submit this purported contract as an exhibit in the trial court. A few days later, B returned to the showroom at the request of D, one of the defendant's salesmen, to return the purchase documents so that corrections could be made. B was assured that the terms of the documents would not change. B and E claimed that they never signed any other documents in connection with the sale of the plow truck. Both parties, however, submitted into evidence an instalment contract dated January 26, 2015, which identified the plow truck as the purchased vehicle and listed an increased sales price, a higher loan interest rate, and a longer loan period than that which the plaintiffs alleged had been quoted by D and incorporated into the original contract. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant forged their signatures on the January 26, 2015 contract documents. They also alleged that the window sticker on the plow truck, known as a Monroney sticker, did not reflect the vehicle's true price. D died sometime after the purchase of the plow truck and was never deposed in this action. G, the owner of the defendant, was called to testify at the trial by the plaintiffs. She stated that, although she did not have firsthand knowledge of the events surrounding the transaction, she had discussed it with D and there was no indication that there had been a deal or contract that reflected the terms the plaintiffs claimed were set forth in the Janu

Jurisdiction Industrial Commission Jurisdiction of Superior Court Third-Party Complaint Exclusivity Provision of Workers Compensation Act Indemnification and Contribution