Leto v. Bridges Healthcare, Inc., 3:20-cv-01272

Background

Plaintiff Shirley Leto sued Bridges Healthcare asserting wrongful discharge (both common law and under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q), breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The Court previously dismissed Leto’s § 31-51q claim but allowed her leave to move to amend.
Leto filed a proposed Third Amended Complaint to reassert a § 31-51q wrongful discharge claim; Bridges opposed, arguing Leto had not cured prior pleading defects (including failure to allege protected activity and, as previously argued, lack of state action).
The Court reconsidered whether § 31-51q requires state action and, relying on Connecticut precedent, concluded § 31-51q covers private employers, so the state-action question was inapposite.
The Court held Leto still failed to plead (1) protected activity that is a matter of public concern (her asserted privacy/associational interest in a consensual relationship with an executive was not shown to be of public concern) and (2) adequate facts showing the activity did not interfere with the central purposes of the employment relationship.
The Court denied leave to amend to add the § 31-51q claim, dismissed that federal-question claim, declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, and remanded them to Connecticut Superior Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave to amend to add a § 31-51q wrongful discharge claim should be granted	Leto sought leave to replead her § 31-51q claim to cure defects	Bridges argued Leto failed to cure earlier deficiencies and amendment would be futile	Denied — amendment would be futile because elements of a § 31-51q claim were not adequately pleaded
Whether § 31-51q requires state action (i.e., applies only to public employers)	Leto assumed § 31-51q applies to her private-employer situation	Bridges argued state-action was required	Court concluded § 31-51q applies to private employers; state-action issue is inapposite
Whether Leto alleged “protected activity” (speech/association of public concern) under § 31-51q	Leto characterized her termination as based on exercise of First Amendment rights (privacy, freedom of association) stemming from a consensual relationship and alleged workplace discrimination/harassment concerns	Bridges argued the First Amendment does not recognize the asserted privacy/associational right here and that the alleged conduct is not of public concern	Held Leto failed to plead protected activity: her asserted privacy/association in a personal consensual relationship was not shown to be a matter of public concern
Whether Leto pleaded that her protected activity did not interfere with central purposes of employment	Leto alleged her work quality did not diminish (conclusory)	Bridges emphasized lack of factual allegations showing no substantial interference with job duties	Held allegations were conclusory and insufficient under Iqbal; plaintiff failed to show lack of interference with employment relationship

Key Cases Cited

Cotto v. United Techs. Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999) (Connecticut court holding § 31-51q protects employees of private employers)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors permitting denial of leave to amend, e.g., futility, repeated failure to cure)
Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2006) (when federal claims drop out early, courts should generally decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims)
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (federal courts should dismiss without prejudice state-law claims when federal claims are eliminated early)
Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2009) (Rule 16 good-cause standard limits amendment after scheduling order)
Monahan v. New York City Dep’t of Corr., 214 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2000) (district court’s denial of leave to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion)