 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Perodeau v. City of Hartford3/26/2002
Conn. 676, 513 A.2d 66 (1986), we considered the plaintiff's claim that he had been wrongfully discharged and that the discharge constituted negligent infliction of emotional distress. We concluded that the discharge did not violate any important public policy and, accordingly, did not fall within any exception to the employment at will doctrine. Id., 678-81. We also concluded that, despite the fact that the termination was not wrongful, there was ''nothing in that doctrine . . . to preclude an action for unintentional infliction of emotional distress based upon unreasonable conduct of the defendant in the termination process.'' Id., 681-82. Thus, Morris stands for the proposition that a wrongful termination is not a necessary prerequisite for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress in the employment context.
In Parsons v. United Technologies Corp., 243 Conn. 66, 700 A.2d 655 (1997), we again considered claims of wrongful discharge and negligent infliction of emotional distress. In that case, we concluded that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of wrongful discharge; id., 86-87; but, relying on Morris, we also concluded that ''negligent infliction of emotional distress in the employment context arises only where it is 'based upon unreasonable conduct of the defendant in the termination process.' '' Id., 88. Accordingly, we concluded that '' he mere termination of employment, even where it is wrongful, is therefore not, by itself, enough to sustain a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The mere act of firing an employee, even if wrongfully motivated, does not transgress the bounds of socially tolerable behavior.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 88-89. We found that ''the actions that the defendant took in terminating the employment of the plaintiff, as alleged in his complaint, were not so unreasonable as to support a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.'' Id., 89. Thus, Parsons stands for the proposition that a wrongful termination is not, in and of itself, a sufficient basis for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Accordingly, read together, Morris and Parsons merely stand for the proposition that, in cases where the employee has been terminated, a finding of a wrongful termination is neither a necessary nor a sufficient predicate for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The dispositive issue in each case was whether the defendant's conduct during the termination process was sufficiently wrongful that the ''defendant should have realized that its conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and that [that] distress, if it were caused, might result in illness or bodily harm.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 88; Morris v. Hartford Courant Co., supra, 200 Conn. 683; Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone Co., supra, 175 Conn. 345.
The defendants concede that neither Morris nor Parsons stands for the proposition that a termination is a prerequisite for an employment-related negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, but, relying in part on a number of cases that have imposed that limitation, they urge this court to adopt that bright line rule in this case. Accordingly, we turn to a review of the cases that have considered this issue.
In Malik v. Carrier Corp., 202 F.3d 97, 103-104 n.1 (2d Cir. 2000), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in dicta that, after Morris and Parsons, '' hether a viable emotional distress claim for negligent acts in the employment context exists under Connecticut law is . . . unclear.'' The court noted in Malik that in Karanda v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, supra, Superior Cou
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|