Taylor v. Hall Neighborhood House, No. Cv98 035 69 27s (Mar. 17, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Taylor v. Hall Neighborhood House, No. Cv98 035 69 27s (Mar. 17, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3785

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1999

DocketNo. CV98 035 69 27S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3785 (Taylor v. Hall Neighborhood House, No. Cv98 035 69 27s (Mar. 17, 1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Hall Neighborhood House, No. Cv98 035 69 27s (Mar. 17, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3785 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE (#101)First Count. Granted. The allegations are insufficient as a matter of law to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. They do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct nor are there any factual allegations that support the conclusory statement that the plaintiff suffered "extreme emotional distress". DeLaurentis v.New Haven, 220 Conn. 225, 266-67 (1991).

Second Count. Same as first count.

Third Count. Denied. Even if the employment was "at will" and even if the individual defendant harbored only a perception that the plaintiff would report her deficiencies to DCF, termination of the plaintiffs employment for that reason would violate an articulated public policy that protects an employees job security from retaliation for reporting employer deficiencies to supervisory authorities. Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods. Inc.179 Conn. 471, (1980); Morris v. Hartford Courant. Co.220 Conn. 676, 679 (1986).

Fourth Count. Denied. It cannot be said as a matter of law that the individual defendants conduct was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Parsons v. United Technologies, conduct was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Parsons v.CT Page 3786United Technologies, Corp., 243 Conn. 66, 88,-89 (1997).

Fifth Count. Denied. Same as fourth count.

THE COURT,

Mottolese, Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE (#101)First Count. Granted. The allegations are insufficient as a matter of law to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. They do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct nor are there any factual allegations that support the conclusory statement that the plaintiff suffered "extreme emotional distress". DeLaurentis v.New Haven, 220 Conn. 225, 266-67 (1991).

Second Count. Same as first count.

Third Count. Denied. Even if the employment was "at will" and even if the individual defendant harbored only a perception that the plaintiff would report her deficiencies to DCF, termination of the plaintiffs employment for that reason would violate an articulated public policy that protects an employees job security from retaliation for reporting employer deficiencies to supervisory authorities. Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods. Inc.179 Conn. 471, (1980); Morris v. Hartford Courant. Co.220 Conn. 676, 679 (1986).

Fourth Count. Denied. It cannot be said as a matter of law that the individual defendants conduct was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Parsons v. United Technologies, conduct was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Parsons v.CT Page 3786United Technologies, Corp., 243 Conn. 66, 88,-89 (1997).

Fifth Count. Denied. Same as fourth count.

THE COURT,

Mottolese, Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-hall-neighborhood-house-no-cv98-035-69-27s-mar-17-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack