DocketNumber: No. 535889
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4569
Judges: MARTIN, J.
Filed Date: 4/9/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendants' motion for summary judgment as to count one is denied because there remain genuine issues of material fact as to the notice given to the plaintiff, as to the nature of the meeting held on July 14, 1995 and as to the conduct of the parties at said meeting.
The defendants' motion for summary judgment directed at count three is denied because the issue of whether the defendants' conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to impose liability is a question for the trier of fact. Brown v. Ellis,
The defendants' motion for summary judgment directed at count four is denied because an employer does have an obligation to investigate alleged misconduct where the employment relationship is alleged to be more than an at-will relationship. Rood v.Canteen Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, CT Page 4570 Docket No. 058263 (September 19, 1996, Potter, J.).
The defendants' motion for summary judgment directed at count five is denied because the intent of the defendants in this matter is an issue for the jury. Suarez v. Dickmont PlasticsCorp.,
Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.
Martin, J.