229 Conn.App. 316
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background:
- Plaintiffs (Michael and Mary Robinson, civilian U.S. Coast Guard employees) sued Defendant (V. D., another Coast Guard employee) for defamation, various torts, and vexatious litigation, following workplace disputes and a civil protection order proceeding.
- Dispute arose when V. D. filed a union grievance alleging hiring improprieties involving the plaintiffs, and later, after a personal altercation, filed an unsuccessful civil protection order against Michael Robinson.
- Defendant filed a special motion to dismiss under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a), claiming his actions were protected as petitioning activity on matters of public concern, and asserted absolute immunity under the litigation privilege.
- The trial court denied the motion, holding the actions did not relate to public concern and declined to address the absolute immunity issue; defendant appealed.
- Appeals invoked absolute immunity and anti-SLAPP protection, as well as constitutional challenges to § 52-196a by plaintiffs.
- The appellate court reviewed whether statements made during union and protection order proceedings were privileged, and whether the anti-SLAPP statute applied or was constitutionally invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Litigation privilege (absolute immunity) | Defendant’s statements were defamatory and not privileged | All statements were in judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings; privileged | All counts except vexatious litigation are absolutely immune and must be dismissed |
| Anti-SLAPP: "Matter of public concern" | Defendant’s conduct was personal, not on public concern | Speech implicated government hiring/union issues (public interest) | Union grievance statements involved public concern and protected; protection order was private, not covered |
| Anti-SLAPP: Vexatious litigation counts | Grievance proceedings justified tort of vexatious litigation | Grievance not "action against" plaintiffs, protection order was private | Grievance-related counts failed probable cause; part relating to protection order survives |
| Constitutionality of § 52-196a (jury trial/separation) | § 52-196a deprives right to jury and violates separation of powers | Statute is procedural, not unconstitutional | Statute does not violate right to jury trial or separation of powers; probable cause standard does not replace jury function |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225 (Conn. 1991) (administrative proceedings can amount to prior action for vexatious litigation)
- Craig v. Stafford Construction, Inc., 271 Conn. 78 (Conn. 2004) (grievance/arbitration proceedings as quasi-judicial and protected by litigation privilege)
- Priore v. Haig, 344 Conn. 636 (Conn. 2022) (criteria for quasi-judicial proceedings and policy for litigation privilege)
- Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2007) (litigation privilege does not bar vexatious litigation tort)
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2013) (intentional infliction of emotional distress may be subject to litigation privilege)
- Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (Conn. 2024) (scope and rationale of litigation privilege and jurisdictional effects)