203 Conn.App. 75
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Plaintiff Helen Sieranski was a litigation paralegal who reported to Attorney Brooke Goff.
- Goff asked Sieranski to prepare an affidavit falsely stating they never received an arbitrator’s decision; Sieranski drafted it but refused to notarize because she knew it was false.
- Goff repeatedly asked about the affidavit; Sieranski said she would not sign or notarize it.
- The firm terminated Sieranski about eight days after the initial request; she sued for wrongful termination (public policy), pregnancy discrimination, and gender discrimination.
- The trial court granted the firm’s motion to strike the wrongful-termination count, finding §§ 3-94h and 53a-157b inapplicable; the Appellate Court reversed as to that count and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a wrongful-termination claim under the public-policy exception for refusing to assist in making false statements to a court | Sieranski alleges she was fired for refusing to notarize a knowingly false affidavit, invoking the public-policy exception to at-will employment | TJC says allegations do not show termination for refusing to commit unlawful or public-policy-violative acts | Court: Allegations, read favorably to plaintiff, are sufficient to invoke the public-policy exception and survive a motion to strike |
| Whether § 53a-157b (false statement statute) supports the public-policy claim | The statute embodies a policy against making false written statements under oath; the complaint alleges Goff directed a false affidavit and Sieranski would have been exposed as an accessory | Defendant contends complaint lacks allegations that anyone besides Sieranski made or intended to make a false statement or that the affiant was Goff | Court: Complaint reasonably alleges Goff knew statements were false and intended to submit them; § 53a-157b outlines public policy relevant to the claim |
| Whether § 3-94h (notary statute) supports the public-policy claim by prohibiting a notary from performing official acts with intent to deceive or defraud | Sieranski argues notarizing an affidavit she knew to be false would be an "official action" with intent to deceive, invoking § 3-94h as public policy | Defendant and trial court relied on a 1991 amendment and statutory duties to argue notaries are not responsible for document content and § 3-94h does not apply here | Court: § 3-94h’s plain language prohibits any official notarial act done with intent to deceive; allegations that Sieranski knew the statements were false and was asked to notarize them plausibly fall within that policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471 (Conn. 1980) (articulated narrow public-policy exception to at‑will employment)
- Fenner v. Hartford Courant Co., 77 Conn. App. 185 (Conn. App. 2003) (plaintiff must prove employer violated public policy under objective standard)
- Sempey v. Stamford Hospital, 194 Conn. App. 505 (Conn. App. 2019) (standard of review for motion to strike; pleadings construed favorably to plaintiff)
- Deming v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 279 Conn. 745 (Conn. 2006) (pleadings must be read broadly and realistically to effect substantial justice)
- Morris v. Hartford Courant Co., 200 Conn. 676 (Conn. 1986) (plaintiff bears burden of pleading and proving discharge violated public policy)
- State v. Brown, 310 Conn. 693 (Conn. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning controls)