DocketNumber: No. CV98 035 32 87 S
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 2311
Judges: MELVILLE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/25/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendant now seeks to strike each count of the complaint on the ground that each fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Argument was heard by the court on December 7, 1998.
All employer-employee relationships not governed by express contracts involve some type of implied contract of employment. There cannot be any serious dispute that there is a bargain of some kind; otherwise, the employee would not be working.Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
"Typically, an implied contract of employment does not limit the terminability of an employee's employment but merely includes terms specifying wages, working hours, job responsibilities and the like. Thus, [a]s a general rule, contracts of permanent employment, or for an indefinite term, are terminable at will." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 14 .
This general rule, however, can be modified by the agreement of the parties. Id., 15. To prevail on his wrongful termination claim, which alleged the existence of an implied agreement between the parties, the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant had agreed, either by words or action or conduct, to undertake some form of actual contract commitment to him under CT Page 2313 which he could not be terminated without just cause. Reynolds v.Chrysler First Commercial Corp. ,
This court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that something other than an at will employment agreement existed between the parties. The plaintiff has alleged nothing to indicate an express employment agreement existed. The plaintiff has only alleged that the defendant and its agents represented to him that his job was "secure," and that based upon his long service to the defendant, he believed that his job was secure. (Complaint, Count One ¶¶ 5, 8). The representation that the plaintiff's job was secure does not alter the fundamental at will nature of the parties' relationship, or transform it into an agreement by which the plaintiff could be discharged only for cause. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike count one of the plaintiff's complaint should be granted.
Every contract carries an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requiring that neither party do anything that will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. Gupta v. New Britain General Hospital,
The plaintiff has alleged in count one, and incorporated into count two, that contrary to the defendant's reason for discharging the plaintiff, the plaintiff's job responsibilities were not eliminated. (Complaint, Count One ¶ 11). The plaintiff has failed, however, to allege that his discharge violated an important public policy. Accordingly, this count, too, ought to be stricken in accord with defendant's motion. CT Page 2314
One who, in the course of his [or her] business, profession or employment, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon such information, if he [or she] fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information. Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz Schatz,
The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the defendant represented and assured the plaintiff that his job was secure, but that the defendant knew or should have known that these assurances were false when made, and that the plaintiff has been harmed by the misrepresentations. (Complaint, Count Three ¶¶ 14-16). The allegations in count three of the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently allege a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike count three should be denied.
In order to prove a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, it must be shown, inter alia, that the defendant's conduct was the cause of the plaintiff's distress; and that the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was severe. Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct exceeding all bounds usually tolerated by decent society, of a nature which is especially calculated to CT Page 2315 cause, and does cause, mental distress of a very serious kind.DeLaurentis v. New Haven,
The determination of whether the alleged conduct meets this criteria resides in the first instance with the court. LeFevre v.McDonald, Superior Court, JD Hartford/New Britain at Hartford,Docket No. 573396 (Jan. 16, 1969, Wagner, J.),(
Furthermore, the plaintiff's complaint contains no allegations that the defendant's discharge of the plaintiff was extreme or outrageous or calculated to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress. In addition, the plaintiff's allegation that the discharge has caused him severe emotional distress is nothing more than a legal conclusion which the court need not consider on a motion to strike. Westport Bank Trust Co. v. Corcoran, Mallin Aresco,
The court cannot agree with the plaintiff's position in this regard. CT Page 2316
"[N]egligent infliction of emotional distress in the employment context arises only where it is based upon unreasonable conduct of the defendant in the termination process. The mere termination of employment, even where it is wrongful, is therefore not, by itself, enough to sustain a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The mere act of firing an employee, even if wrongfully motivated, does not transgress the bounds of socially tolerable behavior." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Parsons v. United Technologies Corp. ,
243 Conn. 66 ,88-89 ,700 A.2d 655 (1997).
The plaintiff has the burden of pleading that the defendant should have realized that its conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and that distress, if it were caused, might result in illness or bodily harm. Id., 88. The plaintiff has failed to plead any facts indicating that the defendant's conduct in terminating him was unreasonable. In addition, the plaintiff's allegations that the allegedly wrongful discharge caused him severe emotional loss and distress are conclusory. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike the fifth count of the plaintiff's complaint should be granted.
MELVILLE, J