180 Conn. App. 580
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Amy Binkowski, a tenured New Haven teacher, sued her principal (Yolanda Jones-Generette) and assistant principal (Linda O’Brien) for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from a February 26, 2014 classroom assault by two students.
- Defendants had implemented a school policy refusing administrator involvement in student-discipline incidents and allegedly refused to summon outside help during escalating violence at the school.
- During the assault the plaintiff was knocked to the floor, injured, and called for help; a nearby teacher texted O’Brien and the school nurse was sent, but administrators did not intervene or call 911 according to the complaint.
- Plaintiff alleged the defendants’ policy and inaction were “willful and malicious,” carried out to cause injury and to provoke conditions that would secure special state funding, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- Defendants moved to strike the third revised complaint as barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity provision unless the alleged wrong was wilful or malicious (intentional tort exception). The trial court granted the motion and judgment for defendants; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint pleads actual intent to injure (Suarez actual intent prong) | Binkowski alleged defendants deliberately instituted a policy of inaction and intentionally caused her injuries to obtain state aid | Defendants argued plaintiff’s allegations show negligence/inaction, not an intent to cause the specific injury; no allegation they directed students to assault her | Court: Complaint fails actual intent test — no factual allegations that defendants intended or directed the specific injury; sending a nurse undermines intent claim |
| Whether complaint pleads substantial certainty that injury would occur (Suarez substantial certainty prong) | Binkowski argued defendants knew injuries were substantially certain as a consequence of their policy of denying assistance | Defendants argued allegations describe negligent or cavalier safety failures, not conduct showing they believed harm was substantially certain | Court: Complaint fails substantial certainty test — allegations show at most cavalier indifference; no basis to infer defendants believed plaintiff’s specific injury was substantially certain |
Key Cases Cited
- Jett v. Dunlap, 179 Conn. 215 (recognition of intentional tort exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity)
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 242 Conn. 255 (expansion: actual intent and substantial-certainty standards for intentional-tort exception)
- Sullivan v. Lake Compounce Theme Park, Inc., 277 Conn. 113 (clarifies substantial-certainty standard requires defendant believed harm was substantially certain)
- Melanson v. West Hartford, 61 Conn. App. 683 (failure-to-act allegations implicate negligence, not substantial certainty)
- McCoy v. New Haven, 92 Conn. App. 558 (condonation of violence without direction/authorization insufficient for actual intent)
- Mercer v. Champion, 139 Conn. App. 216 (motion to strike standard)