Ask A Lawyer

Tell Us Your Case Information for Fastest Lawyer Match!

Please include all relevant details from your case including where, when, and who it involoves.
Case details that can effectively describe the legal situation while also staying concise generally receive the best responses from lawyers.

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Email, Phone, Text Messages, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided may not be privileged or confidential.

Employee Awarded $100,000 In Wrongful Discharge Claim

by Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 19, 2017

Employment Employment  Wrongful Termination Employment  Labor Law 

Summary: Blog post about a case where a former employee won a decision against the former employer on a claim of wrongful termination.

Contact the experienced employment law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or

In the case of Gaudio v. Griffin Health Servs. Corp, an employer appealed a decision of the Superior Court which ruled in favor of its employment for alleged claims of wrongful termination and harassment. The employer sought review of the claims, as well as the employee’s award for damages. There are two types of injury in law: (1) economic damages; and (2) noneconomic damages. Economic damages are compensation for monetary expenses related to an injury, such as medical costs and even lost wages. These damages are easily verified by medical bills, invoices, and employment records. Noneconomic damages compensate individuals for non-monetary losses, which are not readily quantifiable. Examples include pain-and-suffering, loss of future enjoyment, and loss of companionship. These damages are subjective, and determined by the jury or finder of fact.

The employer presented multiple issues for review, in its appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the employee, in a suit alleging wrongful discharge and defamation. The court affirmed the verdict, but revisited the subject of economic damages awarded. The court reasoned that the employer’s employee manual contained language from which the jury reasonably could have inferred the presence of an implied contract not to terminate the employee except for just cause, and that the testimony of other hospital employees confirmed this interpretation. The court found that the jury reasonably concluded that the employer committed a breach, and that the trial court correctly instructed the jury thereon. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that statements made by the employer in a letter terminating the employee’s employment were made maliciously, or for an improper motive. The court stated that employee’s noneconomic damages were compensable and were not excessive. However, the court remanded for a reconsideration of the economic damages awarded, as this aspect of the verdict did not reflect the requisite quantum of reasonable certainty.

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of employee, upon a finding that jury reasonably reached the conclusion that employee’s employment contract was an implied contract not to terminate except for just cause, and that the employer breached the contract. The court remanded for a review of the economic damages award, as the jury's award was without a substantial basis in the record. The noneconomic damages award of $100,000 was upheld, and found proper by the court.

If you feel you have been mistreated by your employer or in your place of employment and would like to explore your employment law options, contact the experienced employment law attorneys today at 203-221-3100, or by email at We have the experience and knowledge you need at this critical juncture. We serve clients in both New York and Connecticut including New Canaan, Bridgeport, White Plains, and Darien.

Source: Gaudio v. Griffin Health Servs. Corp., 249 Conn. 523, 733 A.2d 197, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 246, 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 634 (Conn. 1999)

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See's full Terms of Use for more information.