The Connecticut Appellate Court’s decision in Michel v. City of Hartford solidifies important protections for employees’ rights under the state’s free-speech retaliation statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q. This ruling highlights two key points: protecting employees who speak out against workplace discrimination and clarifying the burden of proof when employers claim that such speech disrupts the workplace.

The case involved an employee who alleged retaliation after testifying about workplace discrimination involving a coworker. The court affirmed that this type of testimony is protected under the free-speech retaliation statute, ensuring that employees receive additional protections under the free-speech statute when they speak out about discrimination – in addition to other protections provided by other anti-discrimination statutes.

The decision also emphasized that employers bear the responsibility of proving that the employee’s speech interfered with job performance or workplace relationships, making it more difficult for employers to defeat retaliation claims when employees assert their rights under the law.

What Does This Decision Mean for Employees?

The ruling in Michel v. City of Hartford underscores the importance of protecting employees who take a stand against discrimination. It reinforces that employees do not need to be directly involved in a discrimination claim to have their speech protected. Speaking out or testifying about mistreatment in the workplace is a vital component of addressing inequities, and this decision ensures employees enjoy strong legal protections from retaliation when they engage in that important speech.

Furthermore, the court’s clarification on the burden of proof provides significant support for employees pursuing free-speech retaliation claims. Previously, some courts required employees to overcome the challenging task of proving their speech did not interfere with their job performance or workplace relationships. Now, the court has made it clear that this burden falls on employers. This shift represents an important development for employees seeking to hold employers accountable for retaliatory behavior.

How Has Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC Influenced These Protections?

Although Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC did not represent the parties in the Michel case, the decision relies on other cases that our firm has championed as part of our decades of advocacy in shaping employee free-speech protections under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q. The firm’s work has been instrumental in helping to develop many of the legal principles that courts rely on today when adjudicating claims under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q.

A pivotal moment came in 2013 with the Matthews case. At the time, Connecticut courts largely interpreted the statute in a way that placed the burden on employees to prove their speech did not disrupt workplace performance or relationships. For years, Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC had been arguing for a different interpretation: that employers should bear the responsibility of proving any alleged disruption. This argument prevailed in the Matthews case in 2013, and the Michel decision heavily relied on the decision in Matthews.

The firm also made a significant impact with the 2015 Trusz decision. In that case involving a claim under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q, the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected a restrictive interpretation of employee speech rights that had been adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and removed all free speech protections under the First Amendment for speech made by employees pursuant to their job duties. The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected that wholesale evisceration of employee speech rights and instead upheld broader protections for Connecticut workers under the Connecticut Constitution and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q, ensuring they they were still protected from retaliation under Connecticut law when they spoke out regarding certain important subject matters – serious wrongdoing, official dishonesty, threats to health and safety, and deliberate unconstitutional conduct – even if they were speaking pursuant to the job duties.

Why Is This Ruling Important for Connecticut Workers?

Free-speech protections in the workplace are essential to creating a culture of accountability and fairness. Employees are often the first to notice and address issues such as discrimination, unsafe working conditions, corruption, or other illegal and unethical practices. Without robust protections, workers may feel too intimidated to speak out, allowing injustices and unlawful activities to persist unchecked.

The Michel decision reinforces these protections by clarifying the legal standards under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q. By affirming that employers must prove claims of workplace disruption and protecting employees who testify about discrimination, the court has made it clear that Connecticut law protects employees who engage in constitutionally protected free speech. This approach not only benefits employees but also helps others who the employees are trying to protect when they speak out as citizens on matters of public concern.

Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC; Your Advocates in Workplace Discrimination

For more than two decades, Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC has been at the forefront of advocating for employee rights, particularly in cases involving free speech. The firm’s work has shaped the interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q, ensuring that employees have the tools they need to stand up for themselves and others.

If you believe your rights to free speech have been violated or you are facing retaliation for speaking out, our experienced attorneys are here to help. We understand the complexities of workplace disputes and will fight to protect your rights and reputation. Contact Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC today for a consultation.