Daley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., (SC 16083)

• Decision Date: 03 August 1999
• Docket Number: (SC 16083)
• Citation: 249 Conn. 766,734 A.2d 112
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: VIRGINIA L. DALEY ET AL. v. AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL.

249 Conn. 766

734 A.2d 112

VIRGINIA L. DALEY ET AL. v.AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL.

(SC 16083)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued June 2, 1999.

Officially released August 3, 1999.

Callahan, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Peters, Js.Philip L. Steele, for the appellants(plaintiffs).

Steven M. Greenspan, with whom were Elizabeth A. Alquist and, on the brief, James W. Caley, for the appellees(defendants).Jonathan L. Gould filed a brief for the Connecticut Employment Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.

Opinion

KATZ, J.

The named plaintiff, Virginia L. Daley(Daley),¹ an at-will employee, brought an action against her former employer, Aetna Life & Casualty Company(Aetna), and Michele Flynn, a regional manager at Aetna and Daley's supervisor, claiming, inter alia, wrongful termination of her employment allegedly in retaliation for statements that she had made that were critical of Aetna's failure to implement its highly publicized "family-friendly" workplace policies.The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on certain counts, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on Daley's remaining claims.Thereafter, the trial court rendered judgment on all counts for the defendants.This appeal followed.

IBACKGROUND FACTS

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts.Daley had worked for Aetna from October, 1985, until her discharge in November, 1993.She was hired initially as an interior designer to work on a long-term project to renovate Aetna's home office.In 1989, she transferred to Aetna's corporate leasing department, where she was responsible for coordinating design development and modifying Aetna's field offices nationwide.For the years 1989 and 1990, Daley received annual performance evaluations in which several supervisors expressed dissatisfaction with her work, including her inability to communicate effectively with colleagues and clients, her persistent failure to meet project deadlines, her failure to take action on important assignments, and her failure to accept responsibility for her own shortcomings.

In November, 1990, Flynn began work at Aetna as a regional manager, and Daley's supervisor, in Aetna's corporate leasing department.Soon thereafter, Aetna announced a major reorganization and restructuring, scheduled to begin the following year, which called for a reduction in the number of designers in the corporate leasing department.Around that same time, Daley informed Flynn that she was pregnant.

In early 1991, Flynn assessed Daley's work performance for the previous year and noted in her written evaluation Daley's continued inability to complete projects on time and her failure to update colleagues and clients on the status of ongoing projects.Flynn offered Daley specific suggestions to improve her performance, including suggestions that she organize and manage her time more efficiently, plan her projects more carefully, prioritize her workload, and develop teamwork skills to coordinate and improve communication with team members.Soon thereafter, Flynn approved a $2100 raise for Daley.

In July, 1991, Daley gave birth to a son and commenced a six week period of paid maternity leave, followed by an additional two weeks of paid vacation time.Sometime during her initial absence, Daley telephoned Flynn to request an alternative schedule to take effect upon her return that would enable her to work from home one day per week.After discussing Daley's request with her superiors, Flynn decided that, given the effects of the ongoing reorganization process, including increased workload, the decreased staff, the team-oriented environment, the need to train staff members with new procedures, and the changing needs of the department's customers, she could not accommodate a work-at-home schedule.At the time, Daley considered Flynn's decision to deny her request reasonable.

Daley returned to work on September 15, 1991, in the midst of Aetna's reorganization.By October of that year, eight designers in the corporate leasing department had lost their jobs.Daley, however, was one of the designers chosen to remain in the department.Flynn, in concert with two other regional managers, had promoted Daley to a new position as design project manager, where she would undertake greater responsibility for project management as opposed to actual handson design.

By mid-November, 1991, Daley brought her request to arrange a work-at-home schedule to Lorraine Hritzko, an Aetna human resources representative.After discussing the request with management, Hritzko informed Daley that management still considered it an inappropriate time to accommodate her work-at-home request.Shortly thereafter, Daley sought permission from Flynn to use one day per week as vacation time through the end of the year.Flynn denied that request.

At or about the same time, Flynn approached Daley to express concern about Daley's continued inability to complete key projects in a timely fashion.On November 25, 1991, in response to that conversation, Daley sent Flynn a letter in which she pledged to "get very serious about producing the quantity and quality of work that is required."Thereafter, beginning in January, 1992, Flynn met with Daley weekly to discuss Daley's progress and to review strategies for improving work performance.Despite these efforts, Flynn concluded in Daley's 1991 evaluation that: Daley had failed to display the level of commitment required to attain increased project loads; she continued to have difficulty in meeting deadlines; and her inadequate performance damaged the ability of the unit to achieve its objectives.Daley acknowledged her unsatisfactory work record and, for a second time, promised to improve her performance.Despite her representations, over the next three months Daley continued to produce substandard work.

In the beginning of February, 1992, Daley approached Hritzko a second time seeking to arrange an alternative work schedule.When that request was denied, Daley told Hritzko that management's unwillingness to accommodate her work-at-home request was not consistent with "meeting what the company said about its family flexibility program," and that she"was going to have a real problem if this doesn't get ironed out in one way or the other...."

By March 9, 1992, Daley's work showed no signs of improvement.Consequently, Flynn issued Daley a written warning, the first step in Aetna's progressive discipline policy.In accordance with that policy, Flynn advised Daley that if her performance did not improve within the next twelve months, she would be placed on probation.After a temporary improvement in the quality of her work, Daley's performance deficiencies resurfaced.On October 21, 1992, Flynn placed her on a thirty day probation.

On November 9, 1992, Aetna's internal newspaper ran an article discussing a "Good Guy" award presented to Aetna chairperson Ronald Compton by the National Women's Political Caucus in recognition of Compton's support of model family and medical leave programs.One week later, after reviewing the article, Daley drafted an interoffice memorandum to Compton expressing her dissatisfaction with Aetna's "flexible family [work] arrangements...."The memorandum described Daley's own experiences in attempting to secure a work-at-home schedule, and her disappointment with Aetna's failure to implement its heavily promoted flexible scheduling policies.The memorandum also described the experiences of five unidentified coworkers, two of whom had allegedly left the company because management had denied their alternative schedule requests, and three of whom remained at Aetna despite having been denied requests for alternative schedules.The memorandum further urged that department managers be given the flexibility to fashion staffing schedules that would allow employees to balance workload demands with family obligations, and that various employee relations departments be given the authority to ensure that Aetna adheres to its family flexible policies.

On December 1, 1992, two weeks after Daley sent her memorandum to Compton, Flynn recognized an improvement in her work performance and removed her from probationary status.In a formal memorandum, Flynn advised Daley that failure to maintain a satisfactory level of performance over the next twelve months would constitute grounds for termination.By February, 1993, Daley again had failed to meet critical deadlines and had neglected to inform other team members of the status of ongoing projects.On one occasion, Daley represented to Flynn, prior to leaving on a business trip, that three key projects were proceeding as scheduled.In reality, she had neglected to order materials necessary for the completion of those projects, and had failed to coordinate with team members regarding the status of those projects.On February 10, 1993, citing long-standing performance deficiencies, Aetna terminated Daley's employment.

By revised complaint dated March 4, 1994, Daley initiated an action against the defendants on the following eleven counts: (1) retaliatory discharge under General Statutes § 31-51q;²(2) common-law wrongful discharge; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; (5) tortious interference with employment;³(6) defamation; (7) negligent investigation and supervision; (8) negligent representation on behalf of Daley's son; (9) loss of mother-child consortium on behalf of Daley's son; (10) loss of family consortium by Daley's husband; and (11) loss of mother-child consortium.

The defendants moved to strike all but counts three, four and ten.The trial court, Sheldon, J., denied the motion with respect to counts one, two and six, and granted the motion with respect to the remaining counts.Thereafter, by amended complaint dated August 2, 1996, Daley repleaded counts one through six, and count ten, and asserted a new claim...