Wrongful Termination Cases

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for, inter alia, his allegedly wrongful discharge from employment. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. The plaintiff asserted that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the defendant's termination of his employment violated public policy for the protection of children. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant independent school as a history teacher and he also served as the defendant's Director of Food Studies, a role that required him to establish and maintain a garden on campus and use it to teach a class on food studies. In May, 2015, the plaintiff objected to the defendant's suggestion that telephone poles that had been treated with creosote, a pesticide and wood preservative, be used to make raised beds in the garden because he believed that the chemical posed a health risk to himself and his students. Following the dispute, the plaintiff was relieved of his duties relating to the garden but remained employed as a teacher at the school, entering into at-will employment agreements with the defendant in July, 2015, and April, 2016. In September, 2016, the plaintiff's employment was terminated. Held that the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment because no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the plaintiff set forth a valid wrongful discharge claim: the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his dismissal occurred for a reason that violated public policy because it did not violate any explicit statutory or constitutional provision, as there were no state or federal regulations prohibiting the use of creosote- treated wood, and it did not violate any judicially conceived notion of public policy, as, although the courts may have recognized a public policy of protecting children in their prior interpretations of child protection sta

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for the alleged wrongful termination of his employment in violation of the statute (§ 31- 290a) prohibiting discrimination against employees exercising their rights under the Workers' Compensation Act (§ 31-275 et seq.). The plaintiff had worked for the defendant since 2002, and, every year, received a seasonal layoff notice with recall. In October, 2016, the plain- tiff sustained a work injury, received medical treatment, and filed a workers' compensation claim. Approximately one month after the plain- tiff filed his claim, he received a seasonal layoff notice without recall, terminating his employment. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff in violation of § 31-290a. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff did not meet his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the burden shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792), the plaintiff having presented evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action: the plaintiff presented evidence that he sustained a work injury, reported his injury to the defendant, received medical treatment for his injury, filed a workers' compensation claim arising out of his work injury, and, thereafter, approximately two weeks before he received his seasonal layoff notice without recall, the defendant made the decision to terminate his employ- ment, which showed a sufficiently close temporal connection between the exercise of his rights protected under the act and the defendant's adverse action against him; moreover, the plaintiff produced

decedent-employee's workers' compensation benefits marital status

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Unemployment Compensation Review Commission denial of unemployment benefits discharged for just cause Department of Transportation substance abuse test refusal to submit upon request insubordination Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations urine specimen outside acceptable temperature range failure to provide sufficient specimen evaluation from licensed physician.

MANDAMUS – WRITS: The trial court erred by awarding mandamus relief—ordering the city to promote relator to captain with back pay—because relator could not identify any clear legal right and duty requiring the promotion.