Summary
The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the Garcetti rule applies to claims against private employers under General Statutes § 31-51q. Because the plaintiff's speech concerning diagnostic testing and patient safety was made pursuant to his employment duties, it was not protected by the First Amendment under Garcetti. The court reversed the trial court's judgment awarding the plaintiff damages.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Garcetti v. Ceballos applies to a claim against a private employer under Connecticut General Statutes § 31-51q when the claim is grounded in the First Amendment.
- Whether Schumann's statements and conduct concerning the MicrocytePlus testing process and diagnostic terminology were made pursuant to his employment duties and therefore unprotected under Garcetti.
- Whether, even if Garcetti does not apply under the Connecticut Constitution, Schumann's speech was protected under the pre-Garcetti Pickering and Connick framework.
- Whether the judgment on the § 31-51q claim should be reversed and the common-law wrongful termination claim retried.
Holdings
- Garcetti v. Ceballos applies to claims under § 31-51q grounded in the First Amendment and brought against private employers. Courts must first determine whether the employee spoke pursuant to official employment duties before applying the Pickering/Connick analysis.
- Schumann's statements concerning the safety, reliability, validation, and diagnostic terminology of MicrocytePlus were made pursuant to his employment duties as a pathologist and were not protected speech under Garcetti.
- Even assuming Garcetti does not apply under the Connecticut Constitution, Schumann's speech and related conduct were not constitutionally protected under the Pickering/Connick balancing framework because they were extraordinarily disruptive, substantially interfered with his job performance and workplace relationships, and included insubordination.
- The judgment on the § 31-51q claim must be reversed, with judgment rendered for Dianon Systems, and the case must be remanded for a new trial limited to the common-law wrongful termination claim.
Key quotations
“Thus, we conclude that the rule in Garcetti v. Ceballos, supra, 547 U.S. at 410, 126 S. Ct. 1951 applies to claims under § 31-51q grounded in the first amendment that are brought against private employers, and must be considered as a threshold matter prior to undertaking the Pickering/Connick balancing test articulated in DiMartino v. Richens, supra, 263 Conn. at 665, 822 A.2d 205.” (304 Conn. at 605)
“Accordingly, we conclude that the plaintiff's federal constitutional claims were barred by Garcetti, and the trial court should have granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the § 31-51q claim.” (304 Conn. at 613)
“The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment for the defendant on the claim under § 31-51q and for a new trial limited to the plaintiff's common-law wrongful termination claim.” (304 Conn. at 629)
Factual background
Schumann was a senior pathologist at Dianon Systems, a private medical testing laboratory, and worked on urine cytology testing, including the Microcyte testing program he had helped develop. After Dianon and later LabCorp launched MicrocytePlus, incorporating a Urovysion test and new diagnostic terminology, Schumann objected that the changes lacked adequate clinical research and validation and could confuse physicians and harm patients. He refused to use the new terminology for certain urine cases, was removed from urine services, and was terminated after management cited his absence and refusal to use the new diagnostic terms.
Procedural history
The trial court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found for the plaintiff on the § 31-51q claim and awarded economic damages; the trial court denied posttrial motions and entered judgment totaling $10,136,015, including attorney's fees, punitive damages, and offer-of-judgment interest. The Supreme Court reversed, directed judgment for the defendant on the § 31-51q claim, and ordered a new trial limited to the common-law wrongful termination claim.
Remand instructions
Render judgment for Dianon Systems, Inc. on the claim under General Statutes § 31-51q and conduct a new trial limited to Schumann's common-law wrongful termination claim.