Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an LLC, owned and managed a commercial office building, and Defendant, an LLC, leased and occupied space in the building. A dispute arose between Plaintiff and Defendant over the scope of the lease and payment of rent. This dispute resulted in two people who had ownership interests in Plaintiff bringing the present action, in the name of Plaintiff, against Defendant to enforce the lease and to collect rent. Barbara Levine, who had fifty percent interest in Plaintiff and was the wife of a part owner of Defendant, disapproved of the lawsuit. The trial court rendered judgment for Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action, since one of its member's votes should not have been excluded pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 34-187(b) on the ground that she had an interest in the outcome of the suit that was adverse to the interest of Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff properly excluded Levine from voting her interest in determining whether to bring the present action because her interest in the outcome of the action was adverse to that of Plaintiff's in light of her husband's ownership interest in Defendant.

Plaintiff Luis Patino commenced this action against Defendant, his former employer, claiming that Defendant engaged in a discriminatory employment practice when it permitted his coworkers to harass him based on his sexual orientation over a period of many years. Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, and the trial court entered a judgment in accordance with the verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-81c(1) provides for hostile work environment claims where employees are subject to sexual orientation discrimination; (2) Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a hostile work environment; and (3) the award of damages was supported by the evidence.

Plaintiff G. Berry Schumann, a twelve year employee of Defendant, Dianon Systems, brought a complaint against Defendant alleging a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-51q and common-law wrongful termination of employment for an adverse employment action Defendant took against Plaintiff in response to speech made during the course of Plaintiff's job duties. The trial court found in favor of Plaintiff. At issue on appeal was whether the rule in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which states that public employees who make statements pursuant to their official duties are not insulated from employer discipline for First Amendment purposes, is applicable in an action brought against a private employer pursuant to section 31-51q. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the rule in Garcetti applies to claims under section 31-51q grounded in the First Amendment that are brought against private employers; and (2) Plaintiff's speech was in the course of his employment duties for Defendant and, therefore, was not entitled to First Amendment protection under Garcetti. Remanded with direction to render judgment for Defendant on the claim under section 31-51q and for a new trial limited to Plaintiff's common-law wrongful termination claim.

Plaintiff Carmen Perez-Dickson brought this action claiming that Defendants, the city board of education, the former assistant superintendent of the school district, and the former acting superintendent of the school district, disciplined her for exercising her right to free speech protected by the state and federal Constitutions in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-51q and 17a-101e, discriminated against her on the basis of her race, and intentionally caused her severe emotional distress. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on all counts. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendants did not violate section 31-51q because any relevant speech by Plaintiff had been pursuant to her official job duties and such speech is not protected by the First Amendment; (2) Plaintiff failed to prove her claim of racial discrimination; and (3) Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendants had intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress on her. Remanded with direction to render judgment for Defendants.

Following a jury trial, Defendant Sheri Paige, then an attorney, was convicted of nine charges relating to the theft of assets from an elderly client, including one count of perjury. With respect to the perjury instruction, although Defendant had submitted a request to charge the jury that it must decide whether a particular statement at issue was material and the State had conceded that it was improper for the trial court to have instructed the jury that the State had proven this element as a matter of law, the appellate court determined that Defendant had waived her right to challenge the instruction that was given. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment in part, holding that the appellate court erred in determining that Defendant had waived her right to challenge the instruction. Remanded for a new trial on the charge of perjury.

After a jury trial, Defendant John Jackson was convicted of murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in denying (1) Defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence seized by the police without a search warrant, as Defendant had abandoned his expectation of privacy with respect to the seized items; (2) Defendant's motion to preclude certain evidence that the state had disclosed in an untimely manner, as Defendant established neither that there were exceptional circumstances requiring preclusion nor that he would have been prejudiced by the late disclosure; (3) Defendant's motion to suppress certain statements that he gave to the police, as Defendant was not in custody when he made the statements and the statements were voluntary; and (4) denying Defendant's request to give a jury instruction on third party culpability, as the evidence did not support the instruction.

The State filed an application for an arrest warrant for Defendant, alleging a charge of kidnapping in the first degree for the purpose of committing a sexual assault. The trial court ordered that the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant, which recounted statements of the victim and other individuals regarding the incident, be sealed for fourteen days. The victim requested that the affidavit remain sealed indefinitely, citing her right to be treated with fairness and respect throughout the criminal justice process under the state's victims rights amendment. The trial court denied the victim's motion. The Supreme Court dismissed the victim's appeal without reaching its merits, holding that the victim lacked standing to pursue the appeal, as nothing in the victims rights amendment itself or in subsequently enacted legislation explicitly makes victims parties to criminal prosecutions or otherwise affords them rights to appeal.

In the involuntary conservatorship action underlying this case, Daniel Gross was placed in the locked ward of Grove Manor Nursing Home. Jonathan Newman was appointed by the probate court to represent Gross in the action, and Kathleen Donovan was appointed as conservator. The superior court granted Gross's petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that the conservatorship was void ab initio. Gross subsequently brought a complaint in U.S. District Court, asserting state and federal civil rights claims. The court dismissed it as to all defendants, finding, in relevant part, that Donovan, Newman, and Grove Manor were entitled to immunity because they were serving the judicial process. On appeal, the U.S. court of appeals submitted certified questions regarding Connecticut law to the Supreme Court. The Court held (1) absolute quasi-judicial immunity extends to a conservator appointed by the probate court only when the conservator is executing an order of the probate court or the conservator's actions are ratified by the probate court; (2) absolute quasi-judicial immunity does not extend to attorneys appointed to represent respondents in conservatorship proceedings or conservatees; and (3) the function of nursing homes caring for conservatees does not entitle them to quasi-judicial immunity under any circumstances.

Following a jury trial, Defendant Willie Coleman was convicted of murder in connection with the fatal stabbing of his girlfriend. Defendant appealed, contending that the state offered insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his intent to kill the victim, that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that it could infer such intent from the number of wounds he had inflicted on her, and that an improper statement by the prosecutor in closing argument deprived him of a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient in this case to demonstrate intent; (2) Defendant failed to preserve his claim challenging the jury instructions, and Defendant could not prevail under State v. Golding or the plain error doctrine; and (3) under the circumstances of this case, the prosecutor's remark in closing argument did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial.

Defendant William Coleman was serving a fifteen-year sentence following his convictions on charges pertaining to his relationship with his ex-wife when he went on a hunger strike. Following a trial, the trial court granted the former commissioner of correction's application for a permanent injunction authorizing the department of correction to restrain and force-feed Defendant to prevent life-threatening dehydration and malnutrition. Defendant was subsequently force-fed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined (1) the state's interests outweighed Defendant's common-law right to bodily integrity; (2) the forcible administration of artificial nutrition and hydration to Defendant did not violate his constitutional right to free speech and privacy; and (3) international law did not prohibit medically necessary force-feeding under such circumstances.