Horvath v. City of Hartford
176 A.3d 592
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Horvath was an assistant chief of the Hartford Police Department who reported alleged misconduct in the internal affairs division and sent written concerns after an independent review.
- The city enacted budget cuts that reduced executive command funding; one assistant chief retired and the budget showed elimination of an assistant chief position, though Horvath was told his job was "safe."
- Horvath alleges his duties were reduced or reassigned (removed from certain committees, trainings, meetings) while he absorbed other responsibilities after the retirement.
- Horvath applied for and accepted a higher‑paying chief of police post elsewhere and resigned on September 21, 2012.
- He sued under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51m alleging constructive discharge (and broadly alleging penalty/discipline) in retaliation for whistleblowing; the trial court granted the city summary judgment and Horvath appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive discharge under § 31-51m | Horvath: reassignment/removal of duties and statements about budget elimination created an intolerable work environment forcing him to resign | City: changes reflected budgetary reshuffling and added duties; no demotion, pay cut, reprimand, or threats; position ultimately funded | Affirmed for city — plaintiff failed to show objectively intolerable conditions or employer intent to force resignation |
| Other forms of retaliation (discipline/penalty) | Horvath (on appeal): defendant’s actions also amounted to penalizing/disciplining him for whistleblowing | City: claim not pleaded as distinct cause of action and was raised first on appeal so is unpreserved | Court declined to consider this new theory (unpreserved) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brittell v. Dept. of Correction, 247 Conn. 148 (1998) (defines constructive discharge standard)
- Seery v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., 17 Conn. App. 532 (1989) (employee’s subjective view insufficient to show constructive discharge)
- Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn. App. 501 (2003) (framework for retaliatory discharge under § 31-51m using McDonnell Douglas)
- Chertkova v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1996) (example of sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment on constructive discharge)
- Grey v. Norwalk Bd. of Educ., 304 F. Supp. 2d 314 (D. Conn. 2004) (accumulation of adverse acts can support constructive discharge claim)
- Miller v. United Techs. Corp., 233 Conn. 732 (1995) (standard that summary judgment is appropriate only if a fair and reasonable person could conclude only one way)