263 F. Supp. 3d 391
D. Conn.2017Background
- William Jennings, a Stratford police detective assigned to a coveted DEA task force for nine years, criticized Captain Joseph McNeil for alleged corrupt conduct related to a negotiated union contract and McNeil’s reinstatement and backpay.
- After Jennings voiced that McNeil’s actions were “corrupt,” McNeil and allies instigated internal investigations and disciplinary actions; Jennings received a written warning, was threatened by a captain, was removed from the DEA task force, and ultimately signed a stipulation to avoid termination.
- Jennings resigned in January 2012, claiming constructive discharge and that the Town retaliated for his protected speech under the U.S. and Connecticut Constitutions.
- A federal jury awarded Jennings $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $1,500,000 in punitive damages.
- Post-trial, the court denied defendant’s motions for JMOL/new trial on liability, upheld compensatory damages, found statutory punitive damages available under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q, but ordered conditional remittitur of punitive damages to $500,000 (or a new trial) and awarded plaintiff $500,000 in attorney’s fees subject to acceptance of remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Popik’s threat, removal from DEA, and resignation constitute adverse actions / constructive discharge | Popkin (Jennings) argued the threat, removal from DEA (loss of prestige/overtime), and cumulative treatment made working conditions intolerable and caused constructive discharge | Town argued Popik’s remark was not an adverse action, DEA removal was a lateral transfer, and Jennings had remedies (grievance, HR) so no constructive discharge | Court: Sufficient evidence supported adverse actions and constructive discharge; denied JMOL/new trial on liability. |
| Whether compensatory damages (including emotional distress) were excessive | Jennings described severe emotional distress from career loss and financial harm; jury awarded $1M (largely lost wages + $230k emotional distress) | Town argued emotional distress award excessive and unsupported by medical proof; compared to lower awards in other contexts | Court: Emotional-distress award of $230k was reasonable given testimony and circumstances; compensatory award upheld. |
| Whether punitive damages were available given pleading and legal basis | Jennings proceeded under state & federal constitutional claims; punitive damages available under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31‑51q and were submitted to jury | Town argued complaint did not expressly seek punitive damages nor cite § 31‑51q; asked to vacate punitive award | Court: Submission of punitive damages was proper; complaint reasonably alleged state-law claim under § 31‑51q; no plain error; punitive damages allowed. |
| Whether punitive award was supported/excessive and proper measure for fees | Jennings sought full jury punitive amount; contingency agreement entitles counsel to fees; sought one‑third of award ($833,333) | Town challenged sufficiency/excessiveness of punitive award and argued punitive damages should be limited to attorney’s fees under Connecticut common-law measure | Court: Evidence supported punitive damages but reduced award by remittitur to $500,000 (1:1 with compensatory); fee award set at $500,000 (subject to acceptance of remittitur); common‑law limitation inapplicable to statutory punitive damages under § 31‑51q. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matusick v. Erie Cnty. Water Auth., 757 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard for Rule 50 review and viewing evidence in plaintiff’s favor)
- Zelnik v. Fashion Inst. of Tech., 464 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2006) (First Amendment retaliation adverse-action standard)
- Serricchio v. Wachovia Sec. LLC, 658 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2011) (constructive discharge standard)
- Raedle v. Credit Agricole Indosuez, 670 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2012) (new-trial standard; deference to jury credibility findings)
- Stampf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 761 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2014) (Gore guideposts for assessing punitive-damages excessiveness)
- Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 774 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2014) (review of emotional-distress damages and deference to jury)
- BMW of N. Am. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (guideposts for constitutional limits on punitive damages)
- Ulbrich v. Groth, 310 Conn. 375 (Conn. 2013) (statutory punitive damages distinguished from common-law limit where statute also awards attorney’s fees)
- Hylton v. Gunter, 313 Conn. 472 (Conn. 2014) (Connecticut common-law rule limiting punitive damages to litigation expenses)
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 (Conn. 2003) (two-step analysis for contingency-fee agreements and fee awards)