Court Upholds Termination of Waitress Attacked by Supervisor

Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Amy Benedict claims she was fired from her job at the Trumbull Cheesecake Factory after she was verbally and physically attacked by a supervisor. She filed a lawsuit, claiming negligence, wrongful termination, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

But she was recently dealt another blow when Superior Court Judge William Wenzel struck down all four claims in Benedict’s lawsuit. In an April 21 decision, Wenzel wrote that claims accusing employers and supervisors of being wrong, demeaning, insensitive and even insulting “are not new” and that Connecticut statues note that not every instance of “hurt feelings” qualifies as a tort. Wendell said torts are reserved for behavior and actions that surpass all bounds of decency and are “utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

“This does not strike this court as unusual and such unfairness may be happening in workplaces throughout the world each and every day,” Wenzel wrote. “To characterize such an event as outrageous would invite the court to second guess every action of every employer whenever a party alleged they were extremely upset.”

Benedict’s attorney has since filed an amended complaint and the case is in discovery, according to court records. The amended complaint claims her First Amendment rights were violated for being fired after reporting the threats made against her to the restaurant’s management.

“I do think it’s an interesting case because it involves an interesting question of, if a worker is exposed to physical violence and they were clearly the victim, and didn’t provoke it or respond, should they also be fired?” said attorney Kevin Creed of Torrington. He noted that Benedict’s supervisor was also fired in the aftermath of the episode.

In June 2015, Benedict, who is now 22, was working an evening shift on the restaurant’s patio. In the process of refilling a customer’s glass, she accidentally sprayed soda on the front of the soft-drink dispensing machine. That reportedly prompted Jen Correa, the shift leader, to chastise Benedict. In court documents, Benedict said she did not respond to Correa’s yelling and went back to the patio to deliver the drinks.

The lawsuit claims that Correa followed, cursing at Benedict and asking, “Why the hell would you do that?” Benedict said she replied that she would clean the soda spill and that she did so within a few minutes. But, according to the claim, Correa “continued to stalk her” and spoke of punching Benedict in the face.

Benedict said she went to night manager James Hogaboom to explain what was going on, “when suddenly and without warning, Correa pushed past Hogaboom and physically began slapping, punching and hitting Benedict,” according to the lawsuit filed in September 2015. “Correa then tried to choke Benedict, which inflicted cuts to Benedict’s neck, drawing blood.”

Hogaboom took photos of Benedict’s injuries and sent both women home. He did not call police. Nor did Benedict, said Creed, who described his client as “shocked” by what had happened but willing to overlook the event if she could keep her job. “She wasn’t looking for a lawsuit,” Creed said. “She enjoyed the job and she wanted to handle it as subtly as possible.”

Six days later, Benedict returned to work and met with the restaurant’s general manager, who told Benedict that she was being fired.

Public Policy

The Cheesecake Factory is represented by John Stretton of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart in Stamford. He did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

But in December the Cheesecake Factory filed a motion to strike all counts, claiming Benedict was an at-will employee with no contract providing her protection from being fired. The motion further stated that she simply did not identify any public policy violation committed by the restaurant, even when pressed during hearings. Wenzel sided with the restaurant and its motion to strike.

“First, nowhere in [the first count of negligence] is any public policy identified or alleged,” Wenzel wrote. “No statute, be it state or federal, is referenced, no constitutional provision is mentioned and no public policy identified by the courts has been addressed…

“Of course, no one is in favor of a person being terminated because they are a ‘victim’ or raising some problem with their employer,” Wenzel wrote. “But the courts recognizing the tort of wrongful discharge have steadfastly refused to make it a catchall [allegation], allowing suit whenever an employer has made a decision which is unpopular or allegedly incorrect.”

Even if the Benedict had made a public policy argument, Wenzel expressed doubt it would have succeeded, given that there was no involvement in the criminal courts. “If plaintiff’s intent was to claim [a state] statute identified some broader public policy protecting victims of even unreported crimes, this court is reluctant to go beyond the specific scenarios selected by the legislature,” Wenzel wrote. He also found Benedict couldn’t succeed on negligence claim because she failed to demonstrate how her other supervisors and the restaurant company could have prevented the attack, which she admitted happened “suddenly and without warning.” The judge found that any relief for the attack should be settled under the state Workers’ Compensation Act.

The judge said he dismissed the intentional infliction of distress because the original complaint failed to show that Benedict’s termination was not “humiliating, cruel or inconsiderate.”

“While the court is interested in seeing every employer’s power always exercised in the correct manner, it is not empowered to evaluate a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress by that standard,” Wenzel wrote. “The court here simply cannot find that the action of the defendant, even if all other essential elements had been expressly stated, approached the standard of ‘outrageous.'”

Amended Complaint

Following Wenzel’s ruling, Benedict filed an amended complaint on May 5 arguing that the actions by Correa and the other supervisors was a direct violation of the employee handbook. “No staff member will be subject to retaliation as a result of reporting, in good faith, any actual or potential threat or occurrence of violence,” according to the handbook.

Benedict also claims her First Amendment rights were violated for reporting the harassment and then being assaulted by Correa. “Under the thought of freedom of speech, she should be free from harassment when notifying people that she was the victim of a crime,” Creed said.

Additionally, he counters Wenzel’s ruling that the managers could not have foreseen the “sudden” attack on Benedict by arguing that Benedict was in the process of reporting the verbal assault when Correa appeared and it “was plainly obvious that Correa intended to assault” her and that managers say Correa “approaching a physically threatening manner.”

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.

Source: CT Law Tribune