DocketNumber: No. CV93 0525839S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12504
Judges: WAGNER, J.
Filed Date: 12/9/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In its second special defense, ACE alleges that the plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages from ACE because, while the plaintiff was employed by ACE, he wrongfully copied and removed confidential documents from ACE's premises, including documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, and that he showed these documents to third persons and has refused to return these documents.
In ACE's third special defense, it alleges that the plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages from ACE because, while employed by ACE, the plaintiff "wrongfully obtained or withheld" ACE's property, and that he concealed this fact from ACE.
In both special defenses ACE alleges that, had it known of the plaintiff's actions, it would have discharged him, but that it did not learn of these actions until on or about March 8, 1993.
On June 24, 1994, the plaintiff filed this motion to strike ACE's second and third special defenses.
The Connecticut Appellate Court recently discussed the after acquired evidence doctrine in a wrongful termination case,Preston v. Phelps Dodge Copper Products Co.,
In holding that the trial court improperly refused to instruct the jury as requested, the appellate court made it clear that such an instruction was relevant only to the issue of future earnings the employee would have earned under the contract, also referred to as "front pay," but not to the basic cause of action for wrongful termination or claim for past damages. The court stated "we conclude that although the poison ivy incident could not have affected the employment relationship at the time of the discharge, and therefore the legality of hat [that] discharge, it could have affected the amount of future wages the plaintiff can recover" id. p. 859.
Since in the context of a wrongful termination case, after-acquired evidence is relevant only in the determination of whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for loss of future wages, the second and third special defenses do not contain factual allegations that show that plaintiff has no cause of action, the plaintiff's motion to strike ACE's second and third special defenses is granted.
Wagner, J.