Connecticut Supreme Court Expands Protection For Would-Be Whistleblowers

Connecticut whistleblowers were handed a siren to sound the alarm on employers this week. In interpreting the state constitution in Trusz v. UBS Realty Investors, LLC, SC 19323 (Conn. Sup. Ct., official release Oct. 13, 2015), the Connecticut Supreme Court found whistleblower rights to be broader than those afforded by the United States Constitution's First Amendment. With respect to free speech, the Court found that the Connecticut constitution "protects employee speech in the public workplace on the widest possible range of topics, as long as the speech does not undermine the employer's legitimate interest in maintaining discipline, harmony, and efficiency in the workplace."

The plaintiff, Richard Trusz, was the head of UBS Realty's valuation unit and a managing director of UBS Realty. He oversaw the process that led to valuation of properties in UBS Realty's privately-owned real estate investment portfolio. Trusz suspected errors as a result of insufficient staffing and resources dedicated toward the valuation process and reported it to UBS management in 2008, adding that the errors should be disclosed and a portion of collected fees should be refunded to investors. Trusz also alleged that UBS Realty was breaching its fiduciary duty to investors. The allegations prompted an internal investigation at UBS, which even retained a third party auditor to investigate some of the claims. The investigation revealed the existence of errors in valuation, but the auditor found the errors were not material and did not warrant notifying investors. Trusz disagreed with UBS's conclusions, and alleged violations of UBS's fiduciary, legal, and ethical obligations to its investors.

Trusz then filed charges with state and federal administrative agencies, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation for reporting the valuation errors. The retaliation claim was founded upon various alleged adverse employment actions leading up to the plaintiff's termination in August of 2008, which later formed the basis of his complaint in federal court. Trusz filed suit under § 31-51q of the Connecticut Code, as well as the state constitution. Section 31-51q protects employees from discipline by employers for exercising their rights to freedom of speech pursuant to the state and federal constitutions so long as the speech does not interfere "substantially or materially" with the job. The law also provides for punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Defendants...