7,249 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1863–2026)
Wrongful termination claims arise when an employee is fired in violation of federal or state law, public policy, or an employment contract. While most employment is at-will, employers cannot terminate employees for illegal reasons such as discrimination, retaliation, or exercising legal rights. These cases examine whether the stated reason for termination was pretextual.
Employers most frequently appearing in wrongful termination rulings.
1. Did the trial court err in dismissing Fraser's wrongful termination and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims on the grounds that he did not seek judicial review of the administrative order affirming his termination? 2. Did the trial court err in dismissing Fraser's defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims for failure to state a claim?
summary judgment; de novo; wrongful termination; breach of employment agreement; at will employment; promissory estoppel; disciplinary policy; legitimate business reason; defamation; Greeley claim.
The plaintiff insured appealed from the trial court's judgment for the defen- dant insurance company on her amended complaint alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an insurance dispute concerning underinsured motorist benefits. She claimed, inter alia, that the court improp- erly granted the defendant's motion to bifurcate and stay discovery. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to bifurcate and stay discovery, as the court reasonably could have concluded that bifurcation of the claims served interests of convenience and judicial efficiency and may have negated the need to litigate certain other issues. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for an order of compliance with her discovery requests, as the defendant eventually filed a notice of compliance and the plaintiff did not allege any prejudice resulting from the defendant's delay in complying with her discov- ery requests. This court declined to reach the merits of the plaintiff's claim that the trial court erred with respect to certain legal and factual determinations, as the plaintiff failed to furnish an adequate record for review. The trial court applied a proper legal standard in ruling on the counts of the plaintiff's complaint alleging that the defendant failed to act in good faith pursuant to a provision of CUTPA and that it acted in bad faith in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as the court reasonably could have concluded, in light of the evidence and the related findings of fact, that the plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden of demonstrating that the defendant had acted in bad faith. Argued October 29, 2024—officially released October 28, 2025
Explore rulings by type of employment law claim.
Check which employment laws may protect you — free, private, and no sign-up required.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The classification of claim types is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.