186 Conn. App. 857
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiff Ohan Karagozian, a licensed optician, worked as manager of a JCPenney optical department operated by defendant USV Optical from June to October 2014 and resigned on October 17, 2014.
- Complaint alleged defendant required him to perform optometric assistant duties that violated Connecticut public policy and statutes governing optometry/optician practice and staffing permits.
- Plaintiff alleged he repeatedly asked supervisors to be excused from those duties, was refused, and thus was compelled to resign — asserting constructive discharge in violation of public policy.
- Defendant moved to strike, arguing (a) no private right of action on the regulatory bases pleaded and (b) the complaint failed to plead the elements of constructive discharge (no intent to force resignation; mere assignment of duties insufficient).
- Trial court granted the motion to strike; plaintiff declined to replead and judgment entered for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
- appellate court affirmed, holding the complaint did not plausibly allege employer intent to create an intolerable environment or that the conditions were objectively so intolerable that a reasonable person would be forced to resign.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether being ordered to perform allegedly illegal duties that lead an employee to resign states a constructive discharge in violation of public policy | Karagozian: resignation to avoid committing illegal acts is constructive discharge under Sheets doctrine; employer intent to force resignation not required | USV Optical: constructive discharge requires alleging employer intentionally created intolerable atmosphere to force resignation; here plaintiff only alleges assignment of duties from day one, not intent to force quitting | Court: Rejected plaintiff. Complaint fails to allege employer intent to create intolerable conditions and fails to allege objectively intolerable conditions that would compel reasonable person to resign; affirmed motion to strike |
| Whether Sheets/Faulkner wrongful discharge doctrine should apply to constructive discharge claims | Karagozian: Sheets and Faulkner principles (refusal to violate law) apply equally to constructive discharge | USV Optical: Those cases address direct retaliatory discharge, not constructive discharge; different elements apply | Court: Sheets and Faulkner are not controlling for constructive-discharge claims; plaintiff’s reliance on them is unavailing |
| Whether the complaint alleged sufficiently intolerable working conditions objectively | Karagozian: alleged duties violated public policy and refusal to perform led to resignation | USV Optical: Allegations are merely assignment-of-duties grievances; no facts showing conditions were so difficult/abusive a reasonable person would resign | Court: Allegations insufficient; must be more than employee’s subjective opinion — dismissal affirmed |
| Whether employer intent to create intolerable atmosphere is required element | Karagozian (and amici): employer need only have created the intolerable conditions (focus on objective reality) | USV Optical: Connecticut precedent requires employer intentionally create intolerable atmosphere that forces resignation | Court: Followed Connecticut Supreme Court precedent (Brittell) requiring employer intent; as pleaded, intent not alleged, so claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471 (Conn. 1979) (recognizing retaliatory wrongful discharge exception to at-will employment when discharge contravenes clear public policy)
- Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp., 240 Conn. 576 (Conn. 1997) (applied Sheets to refusal to participate in conduct exposing employee to federal criminal liability)
- Brittell v. Dept. of Correction, 247 Conn. 148 (Conn. 1998) (stating constructive discharge requires employer intentionally create intolerable work atmosphere that forces employee to quit)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2004) (discussing constructive discharge in hostile-work-environment/Title VII context; objective intolerability standard)
- Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2000) (applying objective standard for constructive discharge and requiring evidence of employer intent to create intolerable atmosphere)