DocketNumber: No. CV. 94-0459892S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 10179
Judges: HOLZBERG, J.
Filed Date: 10/18/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In evaluating a motion to strike all facts well pleaded are admitted and must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ferryman v. Groton,
I. COUNT 2 — BREACH OF CREDIT UNION'S CHARTERS AND BYLAWS
In this case the plaintiff generally alleges that certain writings, including the Credit Union's Charter and Bylaws, constituted an employment agreement between himself and the Credit Union and that he was terminated in violation of that agreement. Count 1 of his complaint specifically alleges a breach of contract based on these writings.
Count 2 alleges as an independent cause of action the violation of the same Charter and Bylaws that give rise to his claim of breach of contract in Count 1 of his complaint. Connecticut law is clear that a charter, bylaws and other writings may give rise to an employment contract and that the termination of an employee in violation of the provisions of those writings is actionable under a theory of breach of contract. Owens v. New Britain General Hospital,
II. Count 5 — Violation of Public Policy
Count 5 of the plaintiff's complaint alleges that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy. The plaintiff cites Federal Credit Union Bylaws, the National Credit Union Act's Federal Credit Union Handbook and the Federal Credit Union Act (
Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.,
While it is doubtful that the plaintiff's allegations in this case would support a finding of "a demonstrably improper reason for dismissal, a reason whose impropriety is derived from some important violation of public policy"; Sheets v. Teddy'sFrosted Foods, Inc., supra; for the purpose of surviving a motion to strike, the plaintiff's allegations are sufficient. Gordon v.Bridgeport Housing Authority, supra. CT Page 10181
III. COUNT SIX — NEGLIGENCE
Count six of the plaintiff's complaint alleges that the defendant negligently discharged him in violation of the duty owed to the plaintiff as found in the amalgam of writings which constitute the alleged terms of his contract, viz., the credit union charter and bylaws and applicable federal statutes and regulations. In this count plaintiff seeks to transmute his breach of contract claim into one sounding in negligence. He provides no authority for this proposition. Moreover, such a claim was impliedly rejected in Morris v. Hartford Courant Co., supra, which affirmed the trial court's decision denying the plaintiff's claim based on a "false but negligently made accusation of criminal conduct."
IV. COUNT 7 — TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
Count 7 of the plaintiff's complaint alleges that the individual defendant officers and directors of the credit union tortiously interfered with his employment contract. In Murrayv. Bridgeport Hospital,
[a]n agent acting legitimately within the scope of his authority cannot be held liable for interfering with or inducing his principal to breach a contract between his principal and a third party, because to hold him liable would be, in effect, to hold the corporation liable in tort for breaching its own contract. An agent, however, can be held liable for such interference or inducement if he did not act legitimately within his scope of duty but used the corporate power improperly for personal gain. . . . [T]here is no allegation that the individual defendants profited in any way by inducing the alleged breach. Similarly, there is no allegation that the defendant's acts were actuated by personal feelings against the plaintiff. In short, lack of justification is a condition precedent to liability.
(Citations omitted).
Paragraph 8.d. of count seven of plaintiff's complaint alleges that the individual defendants "were motivated, in their CT Page 10182 conduct toward the HSFCU and Mr. Ferretti, only to save their own positions with HSFCU." Such an allegation, when construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is sufficient to allege a cause of action based on Murray v. Bridgeport Hospital, supra.
Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike counts two and six of the plaintiff's complaint is granted. The motion to strike counts five and seven is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Holzberg, J.