Grasso v. Connecticut Hospice, Inc.
54 A.3d 221
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Grasso worked for Hospice from 1998 to April 2010; she filed 2009 OSHA complaints about defective chairs and a whistle-blower complaint alleging retaliation and discrimination.
- OSHA ordered Hospice to repair chairs; plaintiff alleges retaliation, hostile environment, altered duties.
- October 2009: OSHA whistle-blower determination of reasonable cause.
- January 27, 2010: settlement agreement stating part-time arrangement, no new rights, and release of future claims.
- Plaintiff claimed breach of the agreement and employee handbook, plus tort claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- July 16, 2010: plaintiff filed a six-count complaint; defendants moved for summary judgment; court held no genuine issue of material fact on all six counts; release provision protected defendants on some counts; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the release bars the handbook breach claim | Grasso contends release does not bar handbook claim | Hospice argues release bars liability for pre-agreement claims | Claim moot; appellate review not available on this issue |
| Whether the agreement’s “no greater or lesser rights” clause breached | Grasso says clause guarantees equal treatment failed | Hospice contends clause preserves pre-existing at-will rights, not uniform treatment | Agreement unambiguous; did not require identical accommodations; no breach |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress by individual defendants | Grasso claims conduct post-signing caused distress | Defendants argue no termination-like conduct to support Perodeau rule | No genuine issue; termination requirement not satisfied; claim fails |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress by individual defendants | Grasso alleges harassment, humiliation, and coercive driving demands | Conduct not extreme or outrageous beyond bounds of decency | No genuine issue; conduct not extreme or outrageous; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Murtha v. Hartford, 303 Conn. 1 (2011) (summary-judgment standard; contract interpretation applies to issue)
- Cruz v. Visual Perceptions, LLC, 46 A.3d 209 (2012) (unambiguous contract language; plenary review for contract interpretation)
- Perodeau v. Hartford, 259 Conn. 729 (2002) (termination as prerequisite for negligent infliction of emotional distress in employment)
- Michaud v. Farmington Community Ins. Agency, 33 Conn. L. Rptr. 206 (2002) (employment context; constructive termination not sufficient for NIED)
- Gilliams v. Vivanco-Small, 128 Conn. App. 207 (2011) (insufficient outrageous conduct for IIED when conspired harassment lacks extreme conduct)
- Tracy v. New Milford Public Schools, 101 Conn. App. 560 (2007) (hostile-work-environment claims; not extreme and outrageous conduct)
- Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205 (2000) (elements and standard for IIED)