Supreme Court of Connecticut· 10/12/1999

Cotto v. United Technologies Corp.

Citations

251 Conn. 1
738 A.2d 623
15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 993
1999 Conn. LEXIS 354

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

stating that § 31-51q “should not be construed so as to transform every dispute about working conditions into a constitutional question”
stating that protected activity is activity that in “no way [has] to do with job performance, or on the job [occurrences], or interfer[ence] with . . . employment”
holding the statute’s protections extend into the private workplace
in ruling on motion to strike \the facts alleged in the plaintiff's complaint must be taken to be true\
in ruling on motion to strike “the facts alleged in the plaintiffs complaint must be taken to be true”
presumption that legislature has created consistent body of law warrants interpretation of statute that conforms with existing statutes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Berdon, Borden, Callahan, Katz, McDonald, Peters

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

59 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Cotto v. United Technologies Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.