RETURN DATE: MARCH 31, 2015 SUPERIOR COURT KEEGAN DAY JD OF HARTFORD ve AT HARTFORD THE NORWICH FREE ACADEMY : FEBRUARY 23, 2015 COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION: 1. This is an action to redress wrongful termination in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51-q, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in violation of the common law of the State of Connecticut. PARTIES: 2. The plaintiff in this matter, Keegan Day (hereinafter, ‘the Plaintiff"), was at ~— all times” relevant: to-this- Complaint a resident -of- the -Town of. Pomfret,..State- of Connecticut: — — a 3,__._The defendant in this matter, The Norwich Free Academy (hereafter “the Defendant’), was at all times relevant to this Complaint a not for profit corporation located in the City of Norwich, State of Connecticut. The Defendant operates a private secondary school in Norwich, Connecticut. ALLEGATIONS: 4. Onor about June 19, 2044, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a ~~ Technology Education Teacher for the 2014-2015 school year.—~ 5. As part of Plaintiff's job duties as a Technology Education Teacher Plaintiff was assigned to teach woodworking in the Defendant's Wood Technology Room.Shortly after commencing his teaching duties in the Wood Technology Room, Plaintiff noticed that the room was deficient in safety systems and that its use presented safety and zoning violations/ hazards that put the Plaintiff and students at a serious risk of injury. 7. Onor about September 2014, plaintiff engaged in a discussion with Matt Spinelli, faculty at Defendant institution, and inquired about how plaintiff and students were to finish their projects. Plaintiff was informed that the defendant has never had a ventilation system, a health and safety requirement. 8. On or about the same time, plaintiff was informed from his students that the Wood Level 2 and 3 students informed the plaintiff that they would stain, varnish and use solvents at their tables, which plaintiff understood to again be in violation of health and safety regulations. Upon further examination, plaintiff specifically noticed that the Wood _Technology-Room suffered from the following health and safely issues: a. No ventilation system to remove the fumes from thé toxic urethane chemicals and stain wood finishing products; b. inadequate space for woodworking machines; c. safety guards on numerous woodworking machines were missing or inoperable; d. No ultraviolet eyeglass cabinet available for sanitizing 10. Thereafter, in September 2014, plaintiff engaged in a discussion with “Linda Farinha, defendant Career Arts & Sciences Head ‘of Department:~ Plaintiffexpressed his concerns with the health and safety of himself and his students due to the. condition of the classrooms. 41. Specifically in this conversation, plaintiff stated that he could not finish in the wood technology room without proper ventilation because it was in violation of OSHA regulations and poses a serious health and safety issue because finishing requires open stains that the plaintiff and defendant students would breath into their lungs. Plaintiff stated that said stains, without proper ventilation, are equivalent to a “toxic fumes" and that defendant's non-compliance with regulations has created a completely dangerous environment for plaintiff and his students. 12. Plaintiff statements to Ms. Farinha were made as statement of public concer for the health and safety of not only the plaintiff, but for the numerous students and other faculty that utilize the room on a daily basis. 13. In response, Ms. Farinha seemed dumbfounded and stated to the plaintiff ~.--.that she is not sure of the requirements and that she and the plaintiff should.engage.in.a_ discussion about this with Mr. Matt Spinelli and Jack Millerek, former wood shop teachers at the defendant school 14. Throughout September and October 2014, plaintiff engaged in several casual discussions with Linda Farinha in the wood shop, where the plaintiff reported the following concerns: a, Cannot let students do finishing of wood projects without a proper ventilation system / spray booth; 4 b. Table saws were facing the students seats which put them directly in the *kid back zone";c. Room size in terms of square footage was too small for 22 students; d. No working area around lathes; @. No defined work areas; f. Eyeglasses — need proper sanitation; 18. On or about October 13, 2014, Plaintiff attended a meeting in his woodshop with Facilities Foreman Mr. David Girardin, Facilities Manager Mr. Harry Hansen, and Linda Farinha, head of the plaintiff's department. Plaintiff again raised the same concerns as he did in September with Linda so the plaintiff could point out the deficiencies in the room and the others could observe same. 16. When defendant management and facilities employees questioned plaintiff how to address his concerns, plaintiff stated that he was unsure and recommended that the defendant hire an engineer. 17, _ On or about October 20, 2014, the plaintiff was informed by defendant and its staff that his performance was acceptable. In fact, defendant management performed. “class observations" of the plaintiff and plaintiff was informed that the results were all beneficial and said performance results were placed in his personnel file. Linda Farinha, House Principal Bryant Sheldon, and Curriculum Director Denise Grant all informed the plaintiff that his observations were all positive, 18. On October 24, 2014, plaintiff attended another meeting with defendant management in the Lathan Board Room, Present for the meeting was David Kiein (superintendent), Denise Grant (curriculum director), Linda Farinha (department head), “Harry Hansén (facilities Tanager); and Cyndee Finger (Director of Finance / Human Resources).49. During said meeting, management inquired from the plaintiff what the claimed deficiencies with the room were that the plaintiff claimed. Plaintiff once again informed management of the health and safety violations and the impact that said violations had on staff and students. In response, David Klien stated to the plaintiff in front of everyone present, “you know this is going to cost the school at least $200,000.07" 20. During this same meeting, it became apparent to the plaintiff that defendant management was upset with the plaintiff for raising these health and safety issues. Plaintiff was asked why he was raising these “problems now." Additionally, during the same conversation, management employees for the first time became argumentative with the plaintiff. 21. On or about October 31, 2014, defendant company hired an independent third party, National Safety Consultants, LLC, to perform a mock OSHA audit for the plaintif's..woodshop room... The purpose of. the -audit--was--to~conduct-a--safety compliance audit to identify physical conditions and workplace practices that are in violation of specific OSHA regulations / standards. Present for the audit were the plaintiff, Linda Farinha and Stephani Jones. 22, As a result of the Mock Safety inspection, numerous hazards and violations were found and it was concluded that the defendant was maintaining “an extremely unsafe working / learning environment with a number of very serious safety _ compliance hazards for both students and employees.” It was further determined that the defendant should cease all operations until safety is maintained because the violations “put the students and the employees at serious risk.”23. National Safety Consultants, LLC, provided the defendant with an 18 page report of the numerous safety issues that the defendant was violating. Plaintiff was not provided with a copy of this report at the time that il was issued to the defendant, nor did defendant management verbalize to the plaintiff the results. 24, Thereafter, on or about November 6, 2014, less than a week after the mock OSHA inspection, Plaintiff was called into a meeting with Brian Sheldon, the Defendant's principal 25. When Plaintiff was notified of this meeting he was told that he should bring union representation with him. 26. Though prior to that point in time Plaintiff had only received positive verbal feedback about his job performance, in the meeting plaintiff was confronted with a number of supposed performance deficiencies. 27. These supposed performance issues were false, 28... Thereafter, Plaintiff. was. instructed: that-he-would have-to-attend-another. mééting on November 12, 2014 - _ 29. At the request of Plaintiff's union, this meeting was rescheduled to November 19, 2014. 30. When Plaintiff attended the November 19, 2014 meeting, he was again presented with the same false performance issues presented in the November 6, 2014 meeting. 31. Despite the lack of any progressive discipline or any opportunity to address the supposed issues raised in the November 6, 2014 meeting, Plaintiff was instructed that he was going to be terminated.32. The Defendant then presented Plaintiff with a resignation letter to sign and plaintiff was told that if he did not sign the resignation letter that he would “never work as a teacher again.” 33, Frightened and intimidated by the Defendant's threats, Plaintiff involuntarily signed the resignation letter the Defendant presented him with. COUNT ONE: — Wrongful Termination in Violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-514 1. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of above, as Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this First Count, as if fully set forth herein. 34. The Plaintiff spoke out as a citizen on a matter of public concern when raising issues of student safety. 35. The Defendant's termination of Plaintiff's employment is in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q in that the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff on account of his exercise of his free speech rights under United States and Connecticut Constitutions _ on. matters of public concer, 7 wegen ~ 36. As a result of the Defendant unlawful termination of the Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff has suffered lost wages, lost employment benefits, and other consequential damages. 37. As a further result of the Defendant unlawful termination of the Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress. 38. As a further result of the Defendant unlawful termination of the Plainti's employment, the Plaintif has been forced to expend attorney's fees and costs to secure his rights as guaranteed by Conn. Gen, Stat, § 31-51q.~COUNT TWO: — Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 1. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of above, as. Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Second Count, as if fully set forth herein. 34, The Defendant terminated the Plaintiff in retaliation for exposing the unsafe environment in the Wood Technology Room and for raising health and safety issues and violations. 36. The Defendant's termination of the plaintif’s employment is in violation of the longstanding public policy mandating a safe work environment and safe work instruments set forth in Conn. Gen, Stat. § 31-49, 36. Defendant is further in violation of the laws and public polices articulated in Federal OSHA, including but not limited to the following: a, Hazard Standards (29 CFR 1910.1200); b. Personal Protective Equipment (29 CFR 1910.132); cc. Lockout / tagout (29 CFR 1910.147) d. NFPA fire codes and BOCAVICC building codes; e. Regulations and state statutes conceming eye protective devices (CGS 10-214a). 37. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has suffered a loss of compensation, including but not limited to wages and other fringe benefits. 38. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of the defendant's actions, as aforesaid, the plaintiff has suffered emotional distress. =39. Furthermore, as a result of the defendants’ actions, as aforesaid, the Plaintiff has been forced to incur legal fees and costs in order to obtain the rights to which he is entitled COUNT THREE: Violation of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 1. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of above, as Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Third Count, as if fully set forth herein. 34. The Defendant terminated the Plaintiff in retaliation for exposing the unsafe environment in the Wood Technology Room and for raising health and safety issues and violations. 36. The Defendant's termination of the plaintiff's employment is in violation of the longstanding public policy mandating @ safe work environment and safe work instruments set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-49, 36. Defendant is further in violation of the laws and public polices articulated _ in Federal OSHA, including but not limited to the following: a. Hazard Standards (29 CFR 1910.1200); b. Personal Protective Equipment (29 CFR 1910.12); ©. Lockout / tagout (29 CFR 1910.147); d. NFPA fire codes and BOCA/ICC building codes; ©. Regulations and state statutes conceming eye protective devices (CGS 10-214a); f. Toxic and Hazardous substances (29 CFR 1910, Subpart Z), g. Bloodborne Pathogen Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030);) = = >h. Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories (29 CFR 1910.1450). 37. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has suffered a loss of compensation, including but not limited to wages and other fringe benefits. 38. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of the defendant's actions, as aforesaid, the plaintiff has suffered emotional distress. 39. Furthermore, as a result of the defendants’ actions, as aforesaid, the Plaintiff has been forced to incur legal fees and costs in order to obtain the rights to which he is entitled. COUNT FOU! NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 1, The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of above, as Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Fourth Count, as if fully set forth herein. _.34, The. defendant, through. its agents, servants and employees, negligently inflicted emotional distress upon the plaintiff, and knew or should have known the plaintiffs emotional distress was likely to result from its discriminatory practices, its treatment of the plaintiff in the termination process, and its subsequent termination of the plaintif for pretextual reasons. 36. The defendant's conduct of threats at the termination process and unlawful behavior created an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff emotional harm. 36. The plaintiff's emotional distress could and should have been foreseeable to the defendant in that its discriminatory and retaliatory conduct and subsequenttermination of the plaintiff, accompanied by threats of harm to career, would emotionally disturb any reasonable person, 37. Due to the defendant's, the plaintiff was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, including but not limited to intimidation, embarrassment, stress, anxiety, frustration and humiliation, which has limited his ability to enjoy life's pleasures. 38. Asa further result of aforementioned conduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer in the future, severe emotional and psychological pain and suffering. 39. As a further result of aforementioned conduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has been forced to incur attorney's fees and costs in order to obtain the rights to which he is entitled, THE PLAINTIFF ——~ KEEGAN DAY a By: CF ce Emanuele R. Cicchislio, Esq, CiccHIeLLO & CiccHIELLO, LLP 364 Franklin Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Tel: (860) 296-3457 Fax: (860) 296-0876 "WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff request that the Court assume jurisdiction over this matter and provide him with the following relief: 1. Monetary damages; 2. reinstatement or front pay; 3. punitive damages; 4. attorney's fees and costs; and 5. such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate. THE PLAINTIFF KEEGAN DAY By: EmanuéI@R. Cicchielio, Esq. CiccHieLLo & CiccHieLLO, LLP oe a 364 Franklin Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Tel: (860) 296-3457 a a Fax:(860).296-0676 Juris: 419987 Email: manny@cicchielloesa.com 12RETURN DATE: MARCH 31, 2015 i SUPERIOR COURT KEEGAN-DAY : JD OF HARTFORD v. : AT HARTFORD THE NORWICH FREE ACADEMY : FEBRUARY 23, 2018 STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND ‘The Plaintiff claims the amount of demand in excess of $15,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. THE PLAINTIFF KEEGAN DAY Lic wp LGCCO Emanuele R. Cicchiello, Esq. CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP — —-..~ 364 Franklin Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 an Tel: (860) 296-3457 -—— _ ______ Fax: (860) 296-0676 _ Juris: 419987 Email: manny@cicchielloesq.com 13