Yancey v. Connecticut Life & Casualty Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 05 March 2002 |
Docket Number | (AC 21088) |
Citation | 791 A.2d 719,68 Conn. App. 556 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | KENNETH YANCEY v. CONNECTICUT LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY |
John R. Williams, for the appellant (plaintiff).
David P. Friedman, with whom, on the brief, was Sarah W. Poston, for the appellee (defendant).
The plaintiff, Kenneth Yancey, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs claim of wrongful termination.1 The plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court improperly concluded that the evidence he presented, including testimony regarding the defendant's alleged motive for terminating his employment, did not raise a genuine issue of material fact. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On September 16, 1996, the defendant, Connecticut Life and Casualty Insurance Company, hired the plaintiff as an at-will employee to be its director of sales and marketing. In his position as director of sales and marketing, the plaintiff was expected to "lead the sales and service functions to capitalize on all of [the defendant's] capabilities." Specifically, this position required the plaintiff, inter alia, to expand a telemarketing force able to add a significant number of new prospects annually, to acquire and train agents, to implement a control program to monitor effectively the efforts of all sales and service personnel, and to accomplish the growth rates as outlined in the plaintiffs compensation program. On September 30, 1996, the defendant terminated the plaintiffs employment after a total of two weeks.
The defendant's uncontroverted evidence established that during the two weeks in its employ, the plaintiff demonstrated a lack of skill with respect to not only his own responsibilities as a director, but also the basic skills required of the employees he was hired to train and supervise. The defendant asserts that it terminated the plaintiffs employment for that reason. On April 20, 1999, the plaintiff filed a three count revised complaint alleging wrongful termination in violation of various Connecticut public policies, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. On June 22, 1999, the court granted the defendant's motion to strike the second and third counts. See footnote 1. On June 7, 2000, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the remaining count. On July 24, 2000, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
We begin by setting forth the appropriate standard of review of a trial court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kroll v. Steere, 60 Conn. App. 376, 380-81, 759 A.2d 541, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 909, 763 A.2d 1035 (2000).
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 380. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp., 40 Conn. App. 725, 729, 673 A.2d 573, cert. denied, 237 Conn. 913, 675 A.2d 885 (1996). With this standard in mind, we now determine whether the court's conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to why he was terminated was legally and logically correct.
In alleging that his termination was not premised on unsatisfactory performance, but rather in retaliation for his protesting company policies and programs that were unlawful or contrary to the public policy of the state of Connecticut, we note that the plaintiff relies on the exception to the general rule regarding the termination of at-will employees. Generally, "contracts of permanent employment, or for an indefinite term, are terminable at will." Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 474, 427 A.2d 385 (1980). In Sheets, however, the court also "recognized a common law cause of action in tort for the discharge of an at will employee if the former employee can prove a demonstrably improper reason for dismissal, a reason whose impropriety is derived from some important violation of public policy." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Carbone v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 204 Conn. 460, 466-67, 528 A.2d 1137 (1987), quoting Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc., supra, 475. This exception has been narrowly construed. See Battista v. United...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shukis v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Reg'l Dist. No., 29915.
...counts, and the remaining counts were disposed of by way of motions for summary judgment. See Yancey v. Connecticut Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 68 Conn.App. 556, 557 n. 1, 791 A.2d 719 (2002). 3The court listed, in footnote 11 of its memorandum of decision, the twenty-three pieces of evidence......
-
Cirelli v. Snape, No. CV02 0079158 (CT 4/14/2004)
...to the nonmoving party. B&D Associates, Inc. v. Russell, 73 Conn.App. 66, 69, 807 A.2d 1001 (2002); Yancey v. Connecticut Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 68 Conn.App. 556, 558, 791 A.2d 719 (2002)." Faigel v. Fairfield University, 75 Conn.App. 37, 39-40 (2003). "`A trial court may appropriately r......
-
Riley v. Bridgeport Hospital
... ... CV176067322SSuperior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield, BridgeportFebruary 15, ... omitted.) Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 310 ... Conn. 304, 312-13, 77 A.3d ... omitted.) Yancey v. Connecticut Life & Casualty Ins ... Co., 68 ... ...
-
Saccente v. LaFlamme
...to the nonmoving party. B&D Associates, Inc. v. Russell, 73 Conn.App. 66, 69, 807 A.2d 1001 (2002); Yancey v. Connecticut Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 68 Conn.App. 556, 558, 791 A.2d 719 (2002)." Faigel v. Fairfield University, 75 Conn.App. 37, 39-40, 815 A.2d 140 The defendants allege that bo......