Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
135 Conn. App. 589
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Tomick sued UPS and Trudelle after a December 2004 termination; jury awarded damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), a §31-51x claim, and disability discrimination under §46a-60, plus punitive damages; district history included remand from federal court and posttrial fee decisions; court later remitted punitive damages and remanded count six issues; trial court awarded reinstatement and back pay; cross-appeal focused on attorney’s fees calculation.
- Key events showing termination and alleged pretext: December 1–3, 2004 events including drug-test pressures, alleged threats to terminate, and final termination for workplace violence; physician released plaintiff with light duty; later reinstatement and back pay orders followed.
- Evidence showed the termination process involved questions of pretext and alleged improper drug-testing coercion, with trial court denying directed verdicts on counts challenged on appeal.
- Court found the judge properly denied directed verdicts on count one and count three, but remanded count six and reversed attorney’s fees on the common-law NIED claim.
- Remedies included back pay and reinstatement subject to medical clearance; workers’ compensation settlement evidence was properly precluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NIED—whether evidence supports an unreasonable termination process | Tomick argues conduct during termination was unreasonable | UPS contends no unreasonable conduct occurred | Verdict supported; no directed verdict warranted |
| §31-51x—whether an employee must actually take a urinalysis test | Tomick did not need to prove test administration to recover | Trudelle argues no violation without actual test | Statute plain; employer’s requirement without reasonable suspicion occurred; verdict proper |
| §46a-60—date of adverse employment decision and qualification | Tomick should be treated as not qualified at time of adverse action | Defendant argues different operative date and standard | Court abused by applying wrong termination- process standard; remand to determine operative date and qualification |
| Attorney's fees—whether contingency fee governs; lodestar method | Contingency fee should not cap fees; lodestar may apply | Fees should align with statutory basis and reasonable rate | Court erred by awarding fees on common-law NIED; remanded; lodestar discussion unresolved in light of contingency award |
| Remittitur/back pay issue | Not necessary to decide; remanded in light of count six issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 175 Conn. 337 (Conn. 1978) (recognizes NIED in employment termination context)
- Morris v. Hartford Courant Co., 200 Conn. 676 (Conn. 1986) (conduct in termination context; not merely motive)
- Parsons v. United Technologies Corp., 243 Conn. 66 (Conn. 1997) (limits of termination-related NIED claims)
- Olson v. Bristol-Burlington Health District, 87 Conn.App. 1 (Conn. App. 2005) (unreasonable conduct standard for NIED)
- Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 236 Conn. 96 (Conn. 1996) (mixed-m motive framework; prima facie elements)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1989) (mixed-motive framework guidance)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (pretext framework for discrimination)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method; apportioning fees when related claims)
- Russell v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 200 Conn. 172 (Conn. 1986) (lodestar adjustments where related claims)
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 (Conn. 2003) (contingency fee agreements; departure only for substantial fairness)
- Sorrentino v. All Seasons Services, Inc., 245 Conn. 756 (Conn. 1998) (contingency fee baseline and departures)