Court Rulings

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the defen- dants' motions to dismiss her retaliatory discharge action, which alleged a violation of the whistleblower statute (§ 31-51m). The plaintiff, while employed at a pizza restaurant owned by the defendant S Co. and managed by the defendant L, submitted a complaint to the local health district reporting unsanitary conditions at the restaurant. The day after a health inspector visited the restaurant and disclosed that the plaintiff had made the complaint, the defendants terminated her employment. The plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that she had failed to exhaust administrative remedies available through the Department of Labor, as required by § 31-51m (c). Held: The trial court improperly granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's retaliatory discharge action on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's action focused on her employer's con- duct in terminating her employment following her complaint to the health district, the substance of which related to public health, not occupational safety or health. Argued September 9—officially released December 16, 2025

The plaintiff in error, counsel of record for the defendants in underlying consolidated tort actions, filed a writ of error challenging the trial court's order suspending him from the practice of law for a period of two weeks for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. He claimed that the court's disciplinary order constituted an abuse of its discretion. Held: The trial court acted within its discretion in suspending the plaintiff in error from the practice of law for a period of two weeks, as the record revealed that the court carefully considered the facts relevant to its determination of an appropriate sanction, including various aggravating and mitigating factors, and, contrary to the plaintiff in error's contention, for which he cited no appellate authority, the court was not obligated to follow the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, guide- lines that have not been formally adopted by the judges of this state. Argued October 23—officially released December 16, 2025

Describing the distinction between the joint employment doctrine and lent employee doctrine and determining whether plaintiff, a law enforcement officer conducting off-duty traffic control work, was jointly employed by the sheriff's office and the road repair company.