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's Appeal Seeks Double Damages for $152,323.55 Award

by Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 19, 2017

Employment Employment  Employment Contracts Lawsuit & Dispute  Lawsuit 

Summary: Blog post about an employment case where an employee seeks to double a large award of damages.

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

In the case of Duplisse v. Devino, a former employee sued his former employers, alleging that the employers had breached various agreements regarding unpaid compensation. The Superior Court, rendered judgment in favor of the employee in part and in favor of the employers in part, and awarded plaintiff a total of $152,323.55 in damages. Specifically, the court did not find that the employee would be allowed double damages for his employee’s alleged fraud. To prevail in an action for fraudulent misrepresentation, the employee is required to show that he reasonably relied on that misrepresentation. One who, in the course of his business, profession, or employment supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information.

During the course of employee’s employment, the parties entered into various oral agreements under which the employee would receive additional compensation. The employee alleged that in one agreement, an employer offered to pay him an additional $ 10,000 per year if he would forgo working for other parties in addition to his work for the employer and that the employer failed to pay the amount agreed on. On appeal, the employee argued that the trial court improperly found that he failed to prove his claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. The appellate court found that there was no direct evidence that the employer intended not to follow through on his promise and thus plaintiff failed to show any fraud. Another employer argued that the trial court erred in finding an enforceable agreement for commissions based on construction projects completed. The appellate court held that the trial court properly found that a meeting of the minds existed between the parties as to how profit from the construction projects was to be determined; therefore that agreement was enforceable.

The judgment was affirmed. And the original award of $152,323.55 would not be doubled as requested by the employee.

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 JMaya@mayalaw.com. 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: Duplissie v. Devino, 96 Conn. App. 673, 902 A.2d 30, 2006 Conn. App. LEXIS 347 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on lawyer.com are the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and are not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com 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 gage a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.