Schumann v. Dianon Systems, Inc., 304 Conn. 585

Gianon Systems terminated G.B. Schumann, a senior pathologist, after disputes over the MicrocytePlus testing program and diagnostic language changes.
Schumann raised concerns about patient safety and lack of clinical validation for MicrocytePlus, criticizing its integration with Urovysion and new reporting terms.
Amberson, the defendant’s top pathology executive, pushed MicrocytePlus and the new diagnostic codes; Schumann refused to sign out tests using the new terms.
Schumann was removed from the urine service but continued other duties; after a personal day dispute, he was terminated for unexcused absence and failure to use the new codes.
Schumann sued under General Statutes § 31-51q (first amendment retaliation) and common-law wrongful termination; the trial court awarded damages to Schumann
The trial court denied posttrial motions; the defendant appealed claiming Garcetti barred the § 31-51q claim against a private employer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Garcetti apply to private employers under § 31-51q?	Garcetti limited to public employees; § 31-51q applies broadly to private employers.	Garcetti applies and governs whether speech is protected when made pursuant to official duties.	Garcetti applies to § 31-51q against private employers.
Was Schumann’s speech made pursuant to his official duties, so Garcetti applies?	Speech was about patient safety outside his direct duties and not demanded by employer.	Speech related to duties as a pathologist and to the MicrocytePlus project; it was on-the-job speech.	Speech was made pursuant to official duties; Garcetti threshold applies.
If Garcetti applies, is the speech protected under the balance test (Pickering/Connick) or barred?	Speech was protected; it related to public concern and did not disrupt job performance.	Speech was disruptive and insubordinate, undermining operations and safety.	Speech not protected; Garcetti applies and § 31-51q claim should be dismissed.
Should the state constitution (art. I, § 4) preclude Garcetti analysis and provide greater protection?	State constitution provides greater protection, so Garcetti should not apply.	No necessity to reach state constitutional analysis; Garcetti resolution controls.	State constitutional issue not reached; even if reviewed, pre-Garcetti standards would not protect this speech.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (threshold Garcetti analysis: speech pursuant to duties not protected)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (public concern balancing test for government employees)
Daley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 249 Conn. 766 (Conn. 1999) (§ 31-51q applies to constitutionally protected speech)
Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1999) (private workplace speech and § 31-51q reach; multiple opinions)
Perez-Dickson v. Bridgeport, 304 Conn. 483 (Conn. 2012) (companion case: Garcetti applies to public employees; state constitution discussion)
DiMartino v. Richens, 263 Conn. 639 (Conn. 2003) (Pickering/Connick balancing framework for protected speech)